Types of social action are justified by Max Weber. Weber's theory of social action

One of the central points of Weber's theory is the identification elementary particle individual behavior in society - social action, which is the cause and consequence of a system of complex relationships between people. “Social action,” according to Weber, is an ideal type, where “action” is the action of a person who associates a subjective meaning (rationality) with it, and “social” is an action that, according to the meaning assumed by its subject, correlates with the actions of other persons and is oriented on them. The scientist identifies four types of social action:

§ purposeful- using certain expected behavior of other people to achieve goals;

§ value-rational - understanding behavior and action as intrinsically value-based, based on moral norms and religion;

§ affective - especially emotional, sensual;

§ traditional- based on the force of habit, the accepted norm. In a strict sense, affective and traditional actions are not social.

Society itself, according to Weber's teaching, is a collection of acting individuals, each of whom strives to achieve his own goals. Meaningful behavior that results in the achievement of individual goals leads to the person acting as a social being, in association with others, thus ensuring significant progress in interaction with the environment.

Scheme 1. Types of social action according to M. Weber

Weber deliberately arranged the four types of social action he described in order of increasing rationality. This order, on the one hand, serves as a kind of methodological device for explaining the different nature of the subjective motivation of an individual or group, without which it is generally impossible to talk about action oriented towards others; He calls motivation “expectation”; without it, action cannot be considered social. On the other hand, and Weber was convinced of this, the rationalization of social action is at the same time a tendency historical process. Although this process is not without difficulties, various kinds obstacles and deviations, European history last centuries. the involvement of other, non-European civilizations on the path of industrialization is evidenced, according to Weber. that rationalization is a world-historical process. “One of the essential components of the “rationalization” of action is the replacement of internal adherence to customary mores and customs by systematic adaptation to considerations of interest.”

Rationalization, also according to Weber, is a form of development, or social progress, which is carried out within the framework of a certain picture of the world, which is different in history.

Weber identifies three most general type, three ways of relating to the world, which contain the corresponding attitudes or vectors (directions) of people’s life activity, their social action.

The first of them is associated with Confucianism and Taoist religious and philosophical views, which became widespread in China; the second - with Hindu and Buddhist, common in India; the third - with Judaism and Christianity, which arose in the Middle East and spread to Europe and America. Weber defines the first type as adaptation to the world, the second as an escape from the world, the third as mastery of the world. These different types of attitudes and lifestyles set the direction for subsequent rationalization, that is, different ways of moving along the path of social progress.

Very important aspect in Weber's work - the study of basic relationships in social associations. First of all, this concerns the analysis of power relations, as well as the nature and structure of organizations where these relations are most clearly manifested.

From the application of the concept of “social action” to the political sphere, Weber derives three pure types of legitimate (recognized) domination:

§ legal, - in which both the governed and the managers are subject not to some individual, but to the law;

§ traditional- determined primarily by the habits and mores of a given society;

§ charismatic- based on the extraordinary abilities of the leader’s personality.

Sociology, according to Weber, should be based on scientific judgments that are as free as possible from various kinds of personal biases of the scientist, from political, economic, and ideological influences.

From the very beginning, positivism acquired a dominant position in sociology. However, as it develops, M. Weber proceeds from the fact that sociology must understand the meanings that people attach to their actions. For this purpose, the term “verstehen” is introduced, which is literally translated from German as “to understand.”

At the same time, sociology, being a science that studies human behavior in the most general form, cannot devote itself to identifying the motives of each individual individual: all these motives are so different and so different from each other that we will not be able to compose how many of them some coherent description or create some typology. However, according to M. Weber, there is no need for this: all people have a common human nature, and we just need to make a typology of the various actions of people in their relationships with their social environment.

The essence of using "verstehen" is to put yourself in the position of other people in order to see exactly what meaning they attach to their actions or what goals they believe they serve. Exploring the meaning of human actions is, to some extent, simply an extension of our everyday attempts to understand the actions of the many different people around us.

2. The concept of “ideal type”

M. Weber uses the concept of an ideal type as one of the important research tools in his social analysis. An ideal type is a certain mental construct that is not extracted from empirical reality, but is created in the researcher’s head as a theoretical scheme of the phenomenon being studied and acts as a kind of “standard.” M. Weber emphasizes that the ideal type itself cannot provide knowledge about the relevant processes and connections of the social phenomenon being studied, but is a purely methodological tool.

M. Weber assumed that sociologists select as characteristics of the ideal type certain aspects of behavior or institutions that are available for observation in real world, and exaggerate them into forms of logically understandable intellectual construction. Not all characteristics of this design can be represented in the real world. But any specific situation can be understood more deeply by comparing it with the ideal type. For example, specific bureaucratic organizations may not exactly match the elements of the ideal type of bureaucracy, but knowledge of this ideal type can shed light on these actual variations. Therefore, ideal types are rather hypothetical constructs, formed from real phenomena and having explanatory value.

M. Weber, on the one hand, assumed that the identified discrepancies between reality and the ideal type should lead to a redefinition of the type, and on the other hand, he also argued that ideal types are models that are not subject to verification.

3. The concept of social action

One of central concepts Weberian sociology advocates social action. Here is how M. Weber himself defines it: “We call an action a person’s action (regardless of whether it is external or internal character whether it comes down to non-interference or patient acceptance) if and insofar as the acting individual or individuals associate a subjective meaning with it. We call social an action that, according to the assumption of the actor or actors meaning is correlated with the actions of other people and is oriented towards it.”

Thus, firstly, the most important feature of social action is subjective meaning - personal understanding of possible behavior options. Secondly, the subject’s conscious orientation towards the response of others and the expectation of this reaction is important. Social action differs from purely reflexive activity (rubbing tired eyes) and from those operations into which the action is divided (prepare workplace, get a book, etc.).

4. Ideal types of social action

Purposeful action. This maximally rational type of action is characterized by clarity and awareness of the set goal, and this is correlated with rationally meaningful means that ensure the achievement of this particular goal and not some other goal. The rationality of a 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. As a social action (and therefore focused on certain expectations from other people), it presupposes a rational calculation of the acting subject for the appropriate reaction from the people around him and for the use of their behavior to achieve the goal. Such a model acts primarily as an ideal type, which means that real human actions can be understood by measuring the degree of deviation from this model.

Value-rational action. This ideal type of social action involves the commission of actions that are based on the conviction of the self-sufficient value of the action. Value-rational action, according to M. Weber, is always subordinate certain requirements, in following which the individual sees his duty. If he acts in accordance with these requirements - even if rational calculation predicts a high probability of unfavorable consequences of such an act for him personally, then we are dealing with a value-rational action. A classic example of value-rational action: the captain of a sinking ship is the last to leave, although this threatens his life. The awareness of such direction of actions, their correlation with certain ideas about values - about duty, dignity, beauty, morality, etc. - already speaks of a certain rationality and meaningfulness.

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 performed 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, it is this that constitutes the lion's share of all actions performed by individuals. To some extent, people’s commitment to performing 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.

Affective action is 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 “meaning” mainly in the speedy removal of the arisen emotional stress, in discharge. An individual acts under the influence of affect if he seeks to immediately satisfy his need for revenge, pleasure, devotion, blissful contemplation, or to relieve the tension of any other affects, no matter how base or refined they may be.

The above typology can serve as a good illustration for understanding the essence of what was defined above as the “ideal type.”

5. The concept of rationalization of social life

M. Weber is firmly convinced that rationalization is one of the main trends in the historical process. Rationalization finds its expression in an increase in the share of goal-oriented actions in the total volume of all possible types social action and in enhancing their significance from the point of view of the structure of society as a whole. This means that the way of farming is rationalized, management and way of thinking are rationalized. And all this, according to M. Weber, is accompanied by a colossal increase social role scientific knowledge– this most “pure” embodiment of the principle of rationality.

Formal rationality in Weber’s understanding is, first of all, the calculability of everything that can be quantified and calculated. The type of society in which this kind of dominant arises is called industrial by modern sociologists (although C. Saint-Simon was the first to call it that, and then this term was quite actively used by O. Comte). M. Weber (and after him most modern sociologists) calls all previously existing types of societies traditional. The most important sign Traditional societies are 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 is a definition applicable to any phenomenon, process, action, which is not only amenable to quantitative accounting and calculation, but, moreover, is largely exhausted by its quantitative characteristics. The movement of the process itself historical development is characterized by a tendency towards an increase in formal-rational principles in the life of society and an increasing predominance of the goal-oriented type of social action over all others. This should also mean increasing the role of intelligence in the general system of motivations and decision-making by social actors.

A society where formal rationality dominates is a society where rational (i.e., rationally prudent) behavior acts as the norm. All members of such a society behave in such a way as to use material resources, technology, and money rationally and for the benefit of all. Luxury, for example, cannot be considered rational, since it is by no means a wise use of resources.

Rationalization as a process, as a historical trend, according to M. Weber, includes:

1) in economic sphere– organizing factory production by bureaucratic means and calculating 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 sacraments by personal responsibility;

3) in law - the erosion of specially designed lawmaking and arbitrary judicial precedent by deductive legal reasoning based on universal laws;

4) in politics - the decline of traditional norms of legitimation and the replacement of charismatic leadership by a regular party machine;

5) in moral behavior - greater emphasis on discipline and education;

6) in science – a consistent reduction in the role of the individual innovator and the development of research teams, coordinated experiments and state-directed scientific policy;

7) in society as a whole - the spread of bureaucratic methods of management, state control and administration.

Rationalization is the process by which the sphere of human relations becomes the subject of calculation and management in all social spheres: politics, religion, economic organization, university management, in the laboratory.

6. Sociology of domination by M. Weber and its types

It should immediately be noted that M. Weber distinguishes between power and domination. The first, he believes, precedes the second and does not always have its characteristics. Strictly speaking, domination is rather a process of exercising power. In addition, dominance means a certain probability that orders given by some people (who have authority) will be met by other people with a willingness to obey and carry them out.

These relationships, according to M. Weber, are based on mutual expectations: on the part of the manager (the one who gives orders) - the expectation that the order given will certainly be executed; on the part of the managed - the expectation that the manager has the right to give such orders. Only with confidence in such a right does the controlled person receive motivation to carry out the order. In other words, legitimate, i.e. legal, domination cannot be limited to the very fact of using power; it requires faith in its legitimacy. Power becomes dominance when it is regarded by people as legitimate. At the same time, M. Weber argues, “... the legitimacy of the order can only be guaranteed internally, namely:

1) purely affective: emotional devotion;

2) value-rational: belief in the absolute significance of order as an expression of the highest immutable values (moral, aesthetic or any other);

3) religiously: faith in the dependence of good and salvation on the preservation of a given order.”

There are three ideological bases of legitimacy that can invest rulers with power: traditional, charismatic and legal-rational. In accordance with this, M. Weber substantiates three ideal types of domination, each of which is named according to its ideological basis. Let's look at each of these types in more detail.

Legal-rational domination. Here the main motive for submission is the satisfaction of one’s own interests. At the same time, people obey generally accepted laws, rules that are expressed by other people and on whose behalf they act. Legal-rational domination implies obedience to formal rules established through “correct” public procedures. Hence the important role, which bureaucracy plays in legal-rational domination as an integral element of a rational society, and the enormous attention that M. Weber pays to it in his studies.

Traditional dominance. It rests on the habitual, most often not fully conscious, belief in the sanctity and inviolability of generally accepted traditions and in the legitimacy of the prerogatives of power granted by them. An adherent of traditional authority accepts rules that embody custom and ancient practice. Within this type of domination, the right of power is most often hereditary in nature (something like this: “I serve this man because my father served his father, and my grandfather served his grandfather”). In its purest form, this is patriarchal power. The concept of "patriarchy" in sociology is usually used to describe the dominance of men over women, and it can manifest itself in different types of societies. This concept is also used to describe a certain type of household organization in which the oldest man dominates the entire family, including younger men. One of the most common types of traditional domination, according to M. Weber, is patrimonialism. In patrimonial systems, administrative and political force are under the direct personal control of the ruler. Moreover, the support of patrimonial power is provided not so much by those forces that are recruited from the landowning aristocracy (which is typical, for example, of feudalism), but rather with the help of slaves, regular troops or mercenaries. M. Weber, considering patrimonialism, identified the following features:

1) political instability, since he is the object of intrigue and palace coups;

2) an obstacle to the development of rational capitalism.

In other words, patrimonialism appeared as one aspect of Weber's explanation for the lack of capitalist development in various Eastern societies dominated by personal rule.

Charismatic dominance. It is based on the exceptional qualities attributed to the leader. The term charisma itself (from the Greek “charisma” - “divine gift, grace”) was introduced into the sociological conceptual apparatus by the German theologian E. Troeltsch. In this type of dominance, orders are carried out because the followers or disciples are convinced of the very special character of their leader, whose power exceeds the usual existing practice.

Charismatic dominance is based on the extraordinary, perhaps even magical ability that the master possesses. Neither origin, nor heredity associated with it, nor any rational considerations play a role here - only the personal qualities of the leader are important. Having charisma means direct, directly exercised dominance. Most of the prophets famous in history (including all the founders of world religions), generals and outstanding political leaders were charismatics.

As a rule, with the death of a leader, disciples dismantle charismatic beliefs or transform them into traditional (“official charisma”) or legal-rational forms. Therefore, charismatic power itself is unstable and temporary.

7. The concept of bureaucracy in the theory of M. Weber

The concept of “bureaucracy” has two meanings:

1) a certain method of management;

2) a special social group that carries out this management process. M. Weber identified rationality as the main characteristic feature of any bureaucratic organization. Bureaucratic rationality, according to M. Weber, should be considered as the embodiment of capitalism; That's why decisive role in a bureaucratic organization must play technical specialists who have received special training and use scientific methods in their work. A bureaucratic organization is characterized by a number of important features, among which M. Weber identifies the following:

1) efficiency, achieved mainly through a clear division of responsibilities between employees of the apparatus, which makes it possible to use highly specialized and highly qualified specialists in each position;

2) strict hierarchization of power, which allows a higher official to exercise control over the activities of a lower one;

3) a formally established and clearly recorded system of rules that ensures uniformity management activities and the application of general instructions to specific cases, as well as avoiding uncertainty and ambiguity in the interpretation of instructions; employees of a bureaucratic organization are subject primarily to these rules, and not to the specific person who expresses them;

4) impersonality administrative activities and emotional neutrality of relationships: each functionary acts as a formal bearer of social power at a certain level, a representative of the position he holds.

Other characteristic features of bureaucracy also include the following: administration based on written documents; recruiting personnel based on abilities acquired through special education; long term service; promotion based on seniority or merit; separation of private and official income.

A modern scientific analysis of M. Weber’s position argues that his idea of the rationality of bureaucracy contains two slightly different points. In one sense, the rationality of bureaucracy is that it maximizes technical efficiency. In another sense, bureaucracy is a system social control or power, which is accepted by members of an organization or social community because they view the rules as rational and fair - a “legal-rational” value system. M. Weber's main goal was a broad historical comparative analysis methods of political administration and their impact on society, he sought to identify the bureaucratic ideal type. Real bureaucratic organizations quite often turn out to be ineffective: they contain, along with rational features, many irrational ones, and along with formal relations, informal ones. Not to mention the fact that obedience here often turns into an end in itself, and power is legitimized by the very fact of being in office.

"Social Action", according to Max Weber, is distinguished by two characteristics that make it social, i.e. different simply from 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 with which M. Weber illustrates his definition of social action: if two cyclists collide on the highway, then this is not a social action (although it occurs between people) - that’s when they jump up and begin to sort things out among themselves (quarrel or help each other). friend), then the action acquires the characteristic of social.

M. Weber identified four main types of social actions:

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

“An individual whose behavior is focused on the goal, means and by-products of his action acts purposefully, who rationally considers the relationship of the means to the goal and by-products... that is, he acts, in any case, not affectively (not emotionally) and not traditionally.” In other words, 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 actor calculates the potential reactions of others and the possibility of using them to achieve his goal.

2) value-rational, in which an 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 fulfilling his beliefs about duty, dignity, and beauty. According to M. Weber: value-rational action is always subject to “commandments” or “demands”, obedience to which a person considers his duty. In this case, the consciousness of the Doer is not completely liberated, since when making decisions, resolving contradictions between personal goals and orientation towards another, he is strictly guided by the values accepted in society.

3) affective, based on people’s emotional reactions;

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

“The will to power” by 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,” wrote Nietzsche, “requires addition: some inner will, which I call “the 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 command.” In the light of this, Nietzsche’s teaching presents the 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 ascent, the will to live; the slavish will to power is the instinct of decline, the will to death, to nothing. High culture is aristocratic, but the dominance of the “Crowd” leads to the degeneration of culture, to decadence.

Nietzsche reduces “European nihilism” to some basic postulates, which he considers his duty to proclaim with sharpness, without fear or hypocrisy. Theses: nothing is true anymore; god died; no morals; everything is allowed. We must understand Nietzsche precisely - he strives, in his own words, not to engage in lamentations and moralistic wishes, but to “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 at least for 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 portrays nihilism as inevitable, calling to understand its essence. Nihilism can become a symptom of the final decline of the will directed 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 “the signs of decline and beginning” he has a special instinct, greater than any other person. I can, the philosopher says about himself, be a teacher for other people, because I know both poles of the contradiction of life; I am this very contradiction.

Causes of occurrence in society.(From the work “The Will to Power”)

Nihilism is behind the doors: where does the most terrible of all come to us?

guests? - Starting point: fallacy - pointing to “disaster”

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

perhaps also on depravity as a cause of nihilism. This -

the most honest and compassionate era

Need, spiritual,

bodily and intellectual need in itself is absolutely not

can give rise to nihilism (i.e. a radical deviation of value,

meaning, desirability). These needs still allow the most

various interpretations. On the contrary, in one very specific

Interpretation, Christian-moral, lays the root of nihilism.

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

turns against the Christian God (sense of truthfulness, high

developed by Christianity, begins to experience an aversion to falsehood and

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

a turn back from “God is truth” to the fanatical belief “Everything is false.”

Buddhism matters.

Skepticism about morality is crucial. A fall

moral interpretation of the world that no longer finds sanction,

after they attempted to find refuge in some

otherworldliness: ultimately - nihilism.

M. Weber: the concept of social action and its types

3.2 Special types of social action according to M. Weber

In addition to the six types of social action according to their orientation, Weber identified four more special types: goal-oriented, value-rational, affective and traditional Patrushev A.I. The disenchanted world of M. Weber. p.- 103. “Social action, like any action, can be defined:

1) purposefully, that is, through the expectation of a certain behavior of objects in the external world and other people using this expectation as a “condition”

Or as “means” for rationally directed and regulated goals (the criterion of rationality is success);

2) value-rationally, that is, through conscious faith in the ethical, aesthetic, religious or otherwise understood unconditional intrinsic value (self-worth) of a certain behavior, taken simply as such and regardless of success;

3) affectively, especially emotionally - through actual affects and feelings;

4) traditionally, that is, through habit.

One cannot help but immediately notice that even two last type actions - affective and traditional - are not social actions in the strict sense of the word, because here we are not dealing with the conscious meaning underlying the action. Weber himself notes that “strictly traditional behavior, as well as purely reactive imitation, stands entirely on the border, and often on the other side of what can generally be called action oriented “by meaning,” for this is very often only a dulled a reaction to habitual irritations, proceeding according to the once accepted habitual attitude. Only value-rational and goal-rational actions are the essence of social action, in the Weberian meaning of the word.

“Purely value-rationally,” writes Weber, “acts one who, regardless of foreseeable consequences, acts in accordance with his convictions and fulfills what, as it seems to him, duty, dignity, beauty, religious precept, requires of him, reverence or importance of some... “deed”. A value-rational action... is always an action in accordance with the commandments or demands that the actor considers to be imposed on himself. In the case of a value-rational action, the goal of the action and the action itself coincide, they are not divided, just as in the case of an affective action; side effects in both the first and second are not taken into account.

In contrast to value-rational action, the last, fourth type - goal-oriented action - can be divided in all respects. “Purposeful,” writes Weber, “acts one who orients his action in accordance with the goal, means and side consequences and at the same time rationally weighs both the means in relation to the goal, both the goals in relation to side effects, and, finally, the various possible goals in relation to each other.”

The four indicated types of action are arranged by Weber in order of increasing rationality: if traditional and affective actions can be called subjective-irrational (objectively they can turn out to be rational), then value-rational action already contains a subjective-rational element, since the actor consciously correlates his actions with a certain value as a goal; however, this type of action is only relatively rational, since, first of all, the value itself is accepted without further mediation and justification and (as a result) the secondary consequences of the action are not taken into account. The actual behavior of an individual, says Weber, is oriented, as a rule, in accordance with two or more types of action: it contains goal-rational, value-rational, affective, and traditional aspects. True, in different types societies, certain types of action may be predominant: in societies that Weber called “traditional”, traditional and affective types of action orientation predominate; of course, two more are not excluded rational type actions. On the contrary, in industrial society highest value acquires a goal-rational effect, but all other types of orientation are present to a greater or lesser extent here. Gaidenko P.P., Davydov Yu.N. History and rationality (Sociology of Max Weber and the Weberian Renaissance). M.: Politizdat, 1991. p. 74.

Finally, Weber notes that the four ideal types do not exhaust the entire variety of types of orientation of human behavior, but since they can be considered the most characteristic, then for practical work For a sociologist, they represent a fairly reliable tool. Patrushev A.I. The disenchanted world of M. Weber. With. 105.

The typology of increasing rationality of social action expressed, according to Weber, an objective tendency of the historical process, which, despite many deviations, was of a worldwide nature. The increasing weight of purposeful rational action, displacing the main types, leads to the rationalization of the economy, management, the very way of thinking and the way of life of a person. Universal rationalization is accompanied by an increasing role of science, which, being the purest manifestation of rationality, becomes the basis of economics and management. Society will gradually transform from traditional to modern, based on formal rationalism.

In Weber's teaching, rationality is divided into formal and material, the difference between which is very significant.

“The formal rationality of an economy should indicate the measure of the calculation that is technically possible for it and the calculation that it actually applies.” On the contrary, material rationality is characterized by the degree to which any provision of material goods to the benefits of a certain group of people takes or can take the form of economically oriented social action from the point of view of certain value postulates.

Material rationality is associated with a value-rational type of action, while formal rationality is associated with a goal-rational type, which turns it into rationality in itself.

Possibilities of applying Hans Joas's theory to the analysis of modern social life

To make a final conclusion whether there is creativity in Max Weber’s theory of social action, it is necessary to consider this theory in detail and draw a conclusion about whether there can be creativity in such social action...

Possibilities of applying Hans Joas's theory to the analysis of modern social life

Now we need to consider the theory of the normative-orientative model of action that Emile Durkheim proposes in order to also conclude whether creativity has a place in Emile Durkheim’s theory of social action...

M. Weber

Sociological views of Spencer, Durkheim, Weber

Purposeful rational action is not a certain universal type of action; on the contrary, it is not even, according to Weber, predominant in empirical reality. Purposeful rational action is an ideal type, not an empirical generalization...

Sociological theories of M. Weber

The concept of social action forms the core of M. Weber's work. He develops a fundamentally different approach to the study of social processes, which consists in understanding the “mechanics” of human behavior...

Sociological creativity of M. Weber

According to Weber, sociology should consider the behavior of an individual or group of individuals as the starting point of its research. An individual and his behavior are, as it were, a “cell” of sociology, its “atom”...

Structure of social interactions

The problem of social action was introduced by Max Weber. He gave the following definition: “Social is an action that, in accordance with its subjective meaning, includes in the actor an attitude towards that...

theory social action social M. Weber (1864--1920) - the largest German specialist in the field political economy, law, sociology, philosophy. M. Weber was influenced by a number of thinkers who largely determined his worldview...

Theories of social action in social work

Talcott Parsons (1902 - 1979) is a famous American sociologist who founded structural functionalism and social systems theory. T. Parsons' study of social systems is based on general theory social action...

Theories of social action in social work

Alexey Nikolaevich Leontiev (1903-1979) - one of the most influential scientists in Russian psychology, founder and dean of the Faculty of Psychology at Moscow State University. M.V. Lomonosov. When developing the theory of activity A.N. Leontyev relied on the ideas of L.S. Vygotsky and M.Ya...

Theories of social action in social work

M. Weber (1864-1920) - the largest German specialist in the field of political economy, law, sociology, and philosophy. M. Weber was influenced by a number of thinkers who largely determined his worldview. Among them are G. Rickert, K. Marx, I. Kant, N...

Theory of action in sociology

“Action” we call a person’s action (regardless of whether it is external or internal in nature, comes down to non-interference or patient acceptance)...

Theory of action in sociology

The obligatory components of the action structure are the subject and object of the action. The subject is the bearer of purposeful activity, the one who acts with consciousness and will. The object is what the action is directed towards...

M. Weber's theory of social action and its methodological significance for the subsequent development of sociology

M. Weber connects the subject of sociology with the understanding of social action: “Sociology,” he writes, “is a science that seeks, through interpretation, to understand social action and thereby causally explain its process and impact”...

M. Weber's theory of social action.

Performed:

Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………..3

1. Biography of M. Weber………………………………………………………..4

2. Basic provisions of the theory of social action………………………7

2.1 Social action……………………………………………………..7

3. Theory of social action……………………………………………………………..17

3.1 Purposeful behavior…………………………………………..18

3.2 Value-rational behavior…………………………………..22

3.3 Affective behavior……………………………………………..23

3.4 Traditional behavior…………………………………………….24

Conclusion………………………………………………………………………………….28

References……………………………………………………………..29

Introduction

Relevance of the topic. The theory of social action represents the “core” of M. Weber’s sociology, management, political science, management sociology and other sciences, and therefore its importance for professional training is very great, because he created one of the most fundamental concepts of sociological science throughout its existence - the theory of social action as a tool for explaining behavior various types of people.

The interaction of a person as an individual with the world around him is carried out in a system of objective relationships that develop between people in their public life and, above all, in production activities. Objective relationships and connections (relations of dependence, subordination, cooperation, mutual assistance, etc.) inevitably and naturally arise in any real group. Interactions and relationships are formed based on human actions and behavior.

Studying Max Weber's theory of social action, one of the main concepts of sociology, makes it possible to find out in practice the reasons for interaction various forces in society, human behavior, to comprehend the factors that force people to act this way and not otherwise.

The purpose of this course work – study of M. Weber’s theory of social action.

Coursework objectives:

1. Expand the definition of social action.

2. Outline the classification of social actions proposed by M. Weber.

1. Biography of M. Weber

M. Weber (1864-1920) belongs to those universally educated minds, which, unfortunately, are becoming fewer and fewer as the differentiation of the social sciences grows. Weber was a major specialist in the field of political economy, law, sociology, and philosophy. He acted as a historian of the economy, political institutions and political theories, religion and science and, most importantly, as a logician and methodologist who developed the principles of knowledge of the social sciences.

Max Weber was born on April 21, 1864 in Erfurt, Germany. In 1882 he graduated from a classical gymnasium in Berlin and entered the University of Heidelberg. In 1889 defended his dissertation. He worked as a professor at the universities of Berlin, Freiburg, Heidelberg, and Munich.

In 1904 Weber becomes editor of the German sociological journal Archive of Social Science and Social Policy. His most important works were published here, including the programmatic study “The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism” (1905). This study begins a series of publications by Weber on the sociology of religion, which he worked on until his death. At the same time, he dealt with problems of logic and methodology of the social sciences. From 1916 to 1919 he published one of his main works, “The Economic Ethics of the World's Religions.” From latest performances Weber's reports “Politics as a Profession” (1919) and “Science as a Profession” should be noted.

M. Weber was influenced by a number of thinkers who largely determined both his methodological guidelines and his worldview. In methodological terms, in the field of the theory of knowledge, he was greatly influenced by the ideas of neo-Kantianism, and above all by G. Rickert.

By Weber's own admission, great importance His thinking was shaped by the works of K. Marx, which prompted him to study the problems of the emergence and development of capitalism. In general, he considered Marx to be one of those thinkers who most strongly influenced the socio-historical thought of the 19th-20th centuries.

As for the general philosophical, worldview plan, Weber experienced two different, and in many respects mutually exclusive, influences: on the one hand, the philosophy of I. Kant, especially in his youth; on the other hand, almost during the same period, he was influenced and was a great admirer of N. Machiavelli, T. Hobbes and f. Nietzsche.

To understand the meaning of his views and actions, it should be noted that Kant attracted Weber, first of all, with his ethical pathos. Kant's moral requirement of honesty and integrity in scientific research he remained faithful until the end of his life.

Hobbes and especially Machiavelli made a strong impression on him with their political realism. As researchers note, it was precisely the gravitation towards these two mutually exclusive poles “(on the one hand, Kantian ethical idealism with its pathos of “truth”, on the other, political realism with its attitude of “sobriety and strength”) that determined the peculiar duality of M. Weber’s worldview.

M. Weber's first works - "On the history of trading societies in the Middle Ages" (1889), "Roman agrarian history and its significance for public and private law" (1891) - immediately placed him among the major scientists. In them he analyzed the connection between state and legal entities with economic structure society. In these works, especially in "Roman Agrarian History", the general contours of "empirical sociology" (Weber's expression) were outlined, which was closely associated with history. In accordance with the requirements of the historical school, which dominated German political economy, he examined the evolution of ancient agriculture in connection with social and political development, and also did not miss the analysis of the forms of family structure, life, morals, and religious cults.

A trip to the USA in 1904, where he was invited to give a course of lectures, had a great influence on his formation as a sociologist. In 1904, Weber became editor of the German sociological journal Archive of Social Science and Social Policy. His most important works were published here, including the programmatic study “The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism” (1905). This study begins a series of publications by Weber on the sociology of religion, which he worked on until his death. At the same time, he dealt with problems of logic and methodology of the social sciences. From 1916 to 1919 he published one of his main works, “The Economic Ethics of the World's Religions.” Among Weber's last speeches, the reports “Politics as a Profession” (1919) and “Science as a Profession” should be noted. They expressed Weber's mentality after the First World War. They were quite pessimistic - pessimistic about the future of industrial civilization, as well as the prospects for the implementation of socialism in Russia. He didn't have any special expectations with him. He was convinced that if what is called socialism comes true, it will only be a completed system of bureaucratization of society.

Weber died in 1920, not having had time to implement all his plans. His fundamental work “Economy and Society” (1921), which summed up the results of his sociological research, was published posthumously.

2. Basic provisions of the theory of social action

The theory of action has a stable conceptual basis in sociology, the formation of which was influenced by various schools of thought. In order to complement or expand this theoretical foundation in order to further improve the theory, it is necessary to proceed from modern level its development, as well as from the contributions of the classics, which today are beginning to take shape in a new way. All this is necessary for it to be effective and not lose relevance for the future. There is complete mutual understanding today regarding M. Weber’s contribution to the development of the theory of action among sociologists. There is also no doubt that his substantiation of sociology as a science of social action represented a radical turn against the positivism and historicism that prevailed in the social sciences at the beginning of the twentieth century. However, much ambiguity and inconsistency exists over the interpretation of his views.

2.1 Social action

Weber defines action (regardless of whether it is manifested externally, for example, in the form of aggression, or hidden within the subjective world of the individual, like suffering) as such behavior with which the acting individual or individuals associate a subjectively posited meaning.. “Social” action becomes only if, according to the meaning assumed by the actor or actors, it correlates with the action of other people and is oriented towards it." And he declares the central task to be the explanation of social action. In its qualitative originality, it differs from reactive behavior, because it is based on subjective meaning. It's about about a predetermined plan or project of action. As a social behavior, it differs from reactive behavior in that this meaning is correlated with the action of another. Sociology, therefore, must devote itself to the study of the facts of social action.

This is how Weber defines social action. “Action” should be called human behavior (it makes no difference whether it is external or internal action, inaction or suffering), if and insofar as the actor or actors associate some subjective meaning with it. “But “social action” should be called one that, in its meaning, implied by the actor or actors, is related to the behavior of others and is thereby oriented in its course.” Based on this, “an action cannot be considered social if it is purely imitative, when the individual acts like an atom of the crowd, or when he is oriented towards some a natural phenomenon».

INSTITUTE OF MARKET ECONOMY, SOCIAL POLICY AND LAW

Department of General Humanitarian and Socio-Economic Disciplines

CONTROL TASK

in the discipline "SOCIOLOGY"

“Sociology of M. Weber. Social Action Concept"

Course 3 Semester 5

Kalinicheva Ekaterina Gennadievna

Teacher

Bulanova Margarita Vernerovna

Moscow 2007

Plan

Introduction

1. Basic principles of the methodology of sociological science by M. Weber

2. Social action as a subject of sociology

3. Weber’s theory of rationalization in sociological interpretations of politics and religion

Conclusion

Bibliography

The purpose of this work is to study the concept and theory of one of the most influential theorists of sociology, Max Weber.

M. Weber (1864-1920) - German sociologist, founder of “understanding” sociology and the theory of social action, who applied its principles to economic history, to the study of political power, religion, and law.

The main idea of Weber's sociology is to substantiate the possibility of maximally rational behavior, manifested in all spheres of human relationships. This idea of Weber found further development in various sociological schools of the West, which resulted in the 70s. into a kind of “Weberian renaissance.”

Becoming concept historical sociology, towards which M. Weber moved throughout his entire creative path, was due to the rather high level of development of contemporary historical science, its accumulation large quantity empirical data about social phenomena in many societies around the world. It was precisely this keen interest in the analysis of these data that helped Weber determine his main task - to combine the general and the specific, to develop a methodology and conceptual apparatus with the help of which it would be possible to organize the chaotic scatter social facts.

Therefore, studying Max Weber’s theory of social action, one of the main concepts of sociology, makes it possible in practice to find out the reasons for the interaction of various forces in society, human behavior, to comprehend the factors that force people to act this way and not otherwise.

1. Basic principles of the methodology of sociological science by M. Weber

The methodological principles of Weber's sociology are closely related to other theoretical systems characteristic of social science of the last century - the positivism of Comte and Durkheim, the sociology of Marxism.

Let us especially note the influence of the Baden school of neo-Kantianism, primarily the views of one of its founders, G. Rickert, according to which the relationship between being and consciousness is built on the basis of a certain relationship of the subject to value. Like Rickert, Weber limits the attitude towards value and evaluation, from which it follows that science must be free from value judgments subjective sense. But this does not mean that a scientist should abandon his own biases; they just shouldn't interfere with scientific developments.

Unlike Rickert, who viewed values and their hierarchy as something supra-historical, Weber believes that value is determined by character historical era, defining common line progress of human civilization. In other words, values, according to Weber, express the general attitudes of their time and, therefore, are historical and relative. In Weber’s concept, they are peculiarly refracted in the categories of the ideal type, which constitute the quintessence of his methodology of the social sciences and are used as a tool for understanding phenomena human society, the behavior of its members.

So, according to Weber, the sociologist must correlate the analyzed material with economic, aesthetic, moral values, based on what served as values for the people who are the object of the study. In order to understand the actual causal connections of phenomena in society and give a meaningful interpretation of human behavior, it is necessary to construct the unreal - ideal-typical constructions extracted from empirical reality that express what is characteristic of many social phenomena. At the same time, Weber considers ideal type not as a goal of knowledge, but as a means to reveal “ general rules events".

How to use it? It is clear that in real life various conditions lead to the fact that a social phenomenon will always have a deviation from the ideal type. According to Weber, the ideal type as a methodological tool allows, firstly, to construct a phenomenon or human action as if it took place under ideal conditions; and, secondly, to consider this phenomenon or action independently of local conditions.

It is assumed that if ideal conditions are met, then in any country the action will be performed in this way. That is, the mental formation of an unreal, ideal-typical - a technique that allows you to understand how a particular historical event really took place. And one more thing: the ideal type, according to Weber, allows us to interpret history and sociology as two directions scientific interest, and not as two different disciplines.

M. Weber's theory of social action (page 1 of 5)

This is an original point of view, based on which, according to the scientist, in order to identify historical causality, it is first necessary to build an ideal-typical construction historical event, and then compare the unreal, mental course of events with their real development. Through the construction of the ideal-typical, the researcher ceases to be a simple statistician historical facts and gains the opportunity to understand how strong the influence of general circumstances was, what the role of the influence of chance or personality was at a given moment in history.

Of his methodological constructs, the concept is important understanding. He used this concept, borrowed from hermeneutics, as a method not only for interpreting the meaning and structure of the author's texts, but as revealing the essence of all social reality, all human history. Polemicizing with the intuitionist interpretation understanding, Weber argued for the rationalistic nature of this operation: a systematic and precise study rather than simply “experiencing” a text or social phenomenon.

The inconsistency of this Weberian concept led to the multidirectional influence of Weber: among his interpreters there are supporters of both a narrower, cultural (symbolic interactionism) and a broader, global-societal (structural functionalism) interpretation of the term “understanding.”

Also in Weber’s works the phenomena of bureaucracy and the overwhelming progressive bureaucratization (“rationalization”) of society are brilliantly explored. “Rationality” is another important category introduced by Weber into scientific terminology.

2. Social action as a subject of sociology

Sociology, according to Weber, is "understanding" because it studies the behavior of an individual who attaches a certain meaning to his actions. Human action takes on character social action, if there are two aspects in it: the subjective motivation of the individual and orientation towards another (others). Understanding motivation, “subjectively implied meaning” and attributing it to the behavior of other people are necessary moments in fact sociological research, Weber notes, citing to illustrate his thoughts the example of a man chopping wood. Thus, we can consider chopping wood only as a physical fact - the observer understands not the chopper, but the fact that wood is being chopped. One can view the hewer as a conscious living being by interpreting his movements. Finally, such an option is also possible when the center of attention becomes the meaning of the action subjectively experienced by the individual, i.e. questions are asked: “Is this person acting according to the developed plan? What's the plan? What are his motives?

It is this type of “understanding”, based on the postulate of the existence of an individual together with other individuals in a system of specific coordinates of values, that serves as the basis for real social interactions in life world. A social action, Weber writes, is an action “the subjective meaning of which relates to the behavior of other people.” Based on this, an action cannot be considered social if it is purely imitative, when an individual acts like an atom of a crowd, or when he is oriented towards some natural phenomenon (for example, an action is not social when many people open their umbrellas during the rain ).

One more thing important note, which Weber does: when using the concepts of “state”, “community”, “family”, etc., we must not forget that these institutions are not really subjects of social action. Therefore, it is impossible to understand the “action” of a people or a state, although it is quite possible to understand the action of their constituent individuals. “Concepts such as “state”, “community”, “feudalism”, etc.,” he writes, “in a sociological sense mean... categories certain types joint activities people, and the task of sociology is to reduce them to the “understandable” behavior... involved in these activities individuals» .

“Understanding” can never be complete and always approximately. It is approximately even in situations of direct interaction between people. But the sociologist seeks to understand the social life of its participants when they are distant, not only in space but also in time: he analyzes the world of his predecessors on the basis of the empirical information available to him.

He deals not only with material, but also with ideal objects and tries to understand the subjective meanings that existed in the minds of people, their attitude to certain values. A complex and at the same time unified social process takes shape only in the course of representing the coordinated interaction of people. How possible is such consistency given the relativity of individuals' understanding of each other? How can sociology as a science “understand” the degree of approximateness in a particular interaction between people? And if a person is not aware of own actions(for health reasons, as a result of manipulation of his consciousness by the media, or under the influence of rally passions), will the sociologist be able to understand such an individual?

The concept of “social action” is one of the central ones in sociology. The significance of social action is due to the fact that it represents the simplest unit, the simplest element of any type of social activity of people. Indeed, even such social processes as social movements, large social conflicts, mobility of social strata, consist of individual actions of individuals interconnected in complex chains and systems.

The essence of social action. For the first time in sociology, the concept of “social action” was introduced and scientifically substantiated by Max Weber. He called social action “a human action (regardless of whether it is external or internal, whether it comes down to non-interference or patient acceptance), which, according to the meaning assumed by the actor or actors, is correlated with the action of other people or is oriented towards it.”

Any social action is preceded by social contacts, but unlike them, social action is a rather complex phenomenon.

⇐ Previous24252627282930313233Next ⇒

Studopedia.org - Studopedia.Org - 2014-2018 (0.001 s)…

The concept of “social action” was introduced by M. Weber, who laid the foundations of the theory of social action. T. Parsons then continued the development of this theory. He created and substantiated the theory of the so-called unified social action.

Social action is an action that is directed at another and is associated with the expectation of a response (an action that has meaning). In this case, social action, including non-interference or patient acceptance, can be oriented towards the past, present or expected behavior of others. It can be revenge for past grievances, protection from danger in the present, or measures to protect against impending danger in the future. "Others" may be individuals, acquaintances, or an indefinite number of completely strangers. At the same time, not all intentional human actions are social, just as not all actions aimed at another can be considered social.

Single action in Parsons' systemic functionalism it is

the simplest elementary system of action that serves as a starting point

point for constructing an analytical theory of human

Actions applicable to systems of any degree of complexity.

The action elements are:

1. sector of action;

2. purpose of action

3. elements of the situation:

a) uncontrollable (situational conditions, norms, values, ideas, rules

b) controlled (means, methods, tactics of achieving the goal).

In any action there is an opposition between the actor and the situation.

The situation always limits the action of the factor. The choice of goal and means of achieving it depend on the active conditions.

The emphasis on the situation requires understanding the relationship between two elements uncontrollable by factors: external conditions and cultural norms. This is one of the main intrigues of the sociological understanding of social life. In any action it is necessary to distinguish between its intention, course and result.

Thus, T. Parsons introduced into the interpretation of the concept of “social action” two points that determine it and force us to understand social action as an element of a broader and more comprehensive system - the system of human action in general. At the same time, the understanding of action became increasingly closer to the understanding of human behavior.

Not all human actions are social. That is, achieving not every goal presupposes an orientation towards another (others). Example: scientist - naturalist. Further. Not every influence on another is a social action (imaginary social actions). Example: car, splashes, driver, pedestrian. Another example: rain, people, umbrellas (mass-homogeneous actions). Or as an example: panic in the auditorium caused by a fire. The action of imitation, infection with a general mood, suggestion is also not social (they are a subject not of sociology, but of psychology).

A.G. Efen0diev believes that social actions are not single, discrete. I think that this is not entirely true.

Now about the types of social actions.

M. Weber identifies four ideal-typical types of actions: purposeful, value-rational, affective and traditional actions.

Purposeful action - an action that is characterized by unambiguity and clarity of awareness by the acting subject of his goal, socially correlated with clearly meaningful means that are adequate, from his point of view, to achieve the goal. The rationality of the goal is verified in two ways:

1.as in terms of the rationality of its own content

2.and from the point of view of the expediency of the chosen means.

Action is value-rational- an action based on belief in the unconditional value (aesthetic, religious or any other) of this action itself, taken in its value determination as something self-sufficient and independent of its possible results. It is always subject to certain “commandments” and “requirements”, in the subordination of which the acting individual sees his duty.

Affective action- an action, the main characteristic of which is the defining emotional state of the acting subject: (the love passion or hatred that has captured him, anger or inspiration, horror or a surge of courage).

Its meaning is not in achieving any “external goal”, but in certainty (in in this case something emotional) of this action itself, its character, animating its “passion” (affect).

The main thing in such an action is the desire for immediate (or as quickly as possible) satisfaction of the passions that possess the individual: revenge, lust, desire, anger and tension (which leaves no room for sociocultural creativity.

Traditional action- an action based on habit, which has therefore become almost automatic; minimally mediated by understanding the goal. It is only an automatic reaction to habitual irritation.

Like the affective, it is “on the border” (and often beyond) of what can be called “meaningfully” oriented action. Contrasted with goal-oriented action, M. Weber nevertheless assigns (compared to affective action) a more positive significance for this type of action. According to Weber, the first two types are actually social actions, since the social is associated with rational activity. In Pareto he also distinguishes not a logical action. He views it as a type of social action. This action is determined by irrational mental attitudes, emotional aspirations, instincts, and not by rational considerations, although it is constantly covered by them. Determined by a special logic of feelings, such an action constitutes the bulk of all human actions and, according to Pareto, plays a decisive role in the history of social life. Weber believes that the most typical society in which goal-oriented actions take place is bourgeois society.

2.2 Social connection and social interaction.

If “social action is the initial category of the conceptual-categorical system of sociology, then “social” connection and such a variety as “social interaction” is the central category of sociology. It is social connections and especially social interactions that constitute the basis of society as a way of human life.

What is social connection?

56. The concept of social action and its types according to M. Weber.

A social connection is an individual’s dependence, realized through social action as an action directed at another individual and associated with the expectation of a response. It is a connection between individuals and groups of individuals pursuing certain social goals in certain specific conditions of place and time. The starting point for its emergence, we emphasize once again, is the dependence of individuals on each other in the process of satisfying their various needs. Social connection, says the Russian Sociological Encyclopedia, is the action of individuals and groups of individuals pursuing certain social goals in specific conditions of place and time. Social connection has pronounced dependence between two or more social phenomena and signs of these phenomena. The starting point when a social connection arises is the interaction of individuals or their groups to satisfy certain needs:

A social connection includes as its mandatory components: (1) the subject of the connection (an individual or a group of individuals); (2) the subject of the connection (that about which the connection is established); (3) the rules by which communication is carried out (formal and informal).

There are different types of social communication: direct and indirect, formal and informal, contact and interaction. Particularly important

The last two types of communication are important.

Social contact- This is a connection, often accidental, not of significant significance for people’s lives.

Social interaction same - these are systematic regular actions of partners directed at each other, with the goal of causing the expected response. An important characteristic of social interaction is the essence of communication, the conjugacy of mutual actions of partners - this is any behavior of individuals, groups of individuals, the entire society, both at the moment and in the future. The concept expresses the nature and content of relations between people and social groups, as permanent carriers of qualitatively different types of activities, i.e. relationships that differ in social positions (statuses) and roles (functions). It has both an objective and a subjective side. “Social interaction is any behavior of an individual, a group of individuals, or society as a whole, both at the moment and in the future. The concept (category) expresses the nature and content of relations between people and social groups as permanent carriers of qualitatively different types of activities, i.e. relationships that differ in social positions (statuses) and roles (functions). It has both objective and subjective sides.”

We can talk about three types of social interactions. This - social relations(system of interactions, say, economic, political, etc.), social institutions(family, education, etc.), social communities (collections of individuals in regular and regulated relationships). Sometimes they also talk about forms of interaction, implying that the basis for their identification is a method of coherence on how to achieve one’s goal. These include: (1) cooperation - cooperation based on the division of labor; (2) competition – individual or group struggle for the possession of values; (3) conflict - a hidden or open clash between competing parties (even war).

Interactions are also divided into direct and indirect (by the way, just like connections).

Social connection, including interaction, can be represented as an exchange of material, moral, emotional, etc. services. This is how the social connection was interpreted, for example, by G. Simmel and T. Parsons, as well as by D. Mead, a representative of symbolic interactionism. He emphasized that any sustainable interaction is possible only on the basis of mutual recognition by partners of common criteria, values, norms, and symbols.

The most important principle of interaction as a social exchange is the principle according to which all participants in the exchange expect to receive rewards in exchange for costs. Compensation for benefits in order to receive them again (receive) is a “trigger mechanism” of social interaction (according to Dlau – “social attraction”), the exchange is carried out on the basis of an agreement and has two forms:

a) diffuse (non-rigid) exchange;

b) negotiated exchange.

It should be borne in mind, however, that the bulk of exchange between people in society is carried out on credit, on the basis of risk, the expectation of reciprocity, on the basis of trust. In this regard, diffuse social exchange, which implies voluntariness, trust in a partner is the fundamental basis of everyday life.

We can talk about levels of exchange, exchange between individuals and exchange between groups of individuals.

Principles of regulation of social interactions,

1. The principle of personal expediency (the “minimax” principle);

2. The principle of mutual effectiveness of interaction

3. The principle of mutual recognition of exchange criteria as justified (legitimate) - the principle of a single criterion.

4. The principle of social differentiation (asymmetry of exchange

— people are different in their social capital). People with less capital demand a certain advantage over the rich (compensation, equal chances, etc.)

5. The principle of balance in the system of social interactions.

This is the resulting principle.

George Homans called the following principles(rules) of exchange:

(1) The higher a given type of action interacts, the more likely it is that this action will be repeated, and vice versa;

(2) If the rewards for a certain type of action depend on conditions, then there is a high probability that a person will strive for them;

(3) If the reward is great, then the person is ready to overcome any obstacles in order to receive it.

K. Marx wrote that 5% will not inspire a businessman, but 300% will force him to commit any crime.

(4) when a person’s needs are close to saturation, he makes less and less effort to satisfy them.

⇐ Previous47484950515253545556Next ⇒

Studopedia.org - Studopedia.Org - 2014-2018 (0.003 s)…

One of the central points of Weber's theory is the identification of an elementary particle of individual behavior in society - social action, which is the cause and consequence of a system of complex relationships between people. “Social action,” according to Weber, is an ideal type, where “action” is the action of a person who associates a subjective meaning (rationality) with it, and “social” is an action that, according to the meaning assumed by its subject, correlates with the actions of other persons and is oriented on them. The scientist identifies four types of social action:

§ purposeful- using certain expected behavior of other people to achieve goals;

§ value-rational - understanding behavior and action as intrinsically value-based, based on moral norms and religion;

§ affective - especially emotional, sensual;

§ traditional- based on the force of habit, the accepted norm. In a strict sense, affective and traditional actions are not social.

3.2 Special types of social action according to M. Weber

Types of social action according to M. Weber

Weber deliberately arranged the four types of social action he described in order of increasing rationality. This order, on the one hand, serves as a kind of methodological device for explaining the different nature of the subjective motivation of an individual or group, without which it is generally impossible to talk about action oriented towards others; He calls motivation “expectation”; without it, action cannot be considered social. On the other hand, and Weber was convinced of this, the rationalization of social action is at the same time a tendency of the historical process. And although this process does not occur without difficulties, various kinds of obstacles and deviations, European history of recent centuries. the involvement of other, non-European civilizations on the path of industrialization is evidenced, according to Weber. that rationalization is a world-historical process. “One of the essential components of the “rationalization” of action is the replacement of internal adherence to customary mores and customs by systematic adaptation to considerations of interest.”

Rationalization, also according to Weber, is a form of development, or social progress, which is carried out within the framework of a certain picture of the world, which is different in history.

Weber identifies the three most general types, three ways of relating to the world, which contain the corresponding attitudes or vectors (directions) of people’s life activity and their social action.

A very important aspect in Weber's work is the study of basic relationships in social associations. First of all, this concerns the analysis of power relations, as well as the nature and structure of organizations where these relations are most clearly manifested.

From the application of the concept of “social action” to the political sphere, Weber derives three pure types of legitimate (recognized) domination:

§ legal, - in which both the governed and the managers are subject not to some individual, but to the law;

§ traditional- determined primarily by the habits and mores of a given society;

§ charismatic- based on the extraordinary abilities of the leader’s personality.