Types of social action according to Weber examples. Ideal types of social actions by M. Weber

The theory of social action M. Weber.

Performed:

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

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

2. The main provisions of the theory of social action………………………7

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

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

3.1 Purposeful rational 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 is the "core" of M. Weber's sociology, management, political science, sociology of management 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 for all the time of its existence - the theory of social action as a tool for explaining the behavior of various types of people.

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

The study of the theory of social action by Max Weber, 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 make people act this way and not otherwise.

The purpose of this course work– study of the theory of social action by M. Weber.

Objectives of the course work:

1. Expand the definition of social action.

2. Designate 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 less and less as the differentiation of the social sciences grows. Weber was the largest 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 the classical gymnasium in Berlin and entered the University of Heidelberg. In 1889 defended his thesis. 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 for Social Science and Social Policy". His most important works are 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 pursued until his death. At the same time, he dealt with the problems of logic and methodology of the social sciences. From 1916 to 1919 he published one of his main works - "Economic Ethics of World Religions". Of Weber's last speeches, the reports "Politics as a Profession" (1919) and "Science as a Profession" should be noted.

M. Weber was influenced by a number of thinkers who determined in many respects both his methodological principles 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 his own admission, Weber, the works of K. Marx, which prompted him to study the problems of the emergence and development of capitalism, were of great importance in shaping his thinking. In general, he attributed Marx to those thinkers who most strongly influenced the socio-historical thought of the 19th-20th centuries.

As for the general philosophical, ideological 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 in the same period, he was under the influence 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. He remained faithful to Kant's moral requirement of honesty and conscientiousness in scientific research until the end of his life.

Hobbes and especially Machiavelli made a strong impression on him with their political realism. As the researchers note, it was the attraction to these two mutually exclusive poles "(on the one hand, Kant's ethical idealism with its pathos of "truth", on the other hand, political realism with its installation of "sobriety and strength") determined the peculiar duality of M. Weber's worldview.

The first works of M. Weber - "On the history of trading societies in the Middle Ages" (1889), "Roman agrarian history and its significance for public and private law" (1891) - immediately put him in a number of prominent scientists. In them, he analyzed the relationship of state-legal formations with the economic structure of society. In these works, especially in Roman Agrarian History, the general contours of an "empirical sociology" (Weber's expression) were outlined, which was most closely associated with history. In accordance with the requirements of the historical school that dominated German political economy, he considered the evolution of ancient agriculture in connection with social and political development, and did not miss the analysis of the forms of family life, way of life, customs, and religious cults.

A trip to the United States 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 the editor of the German sociological journal "Archive of Social Science and Social Policy". Here his most important works are published, 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 pursued until his death. At the same time, he dealt with the problems of logic and methodology of the social sciences. From 1916 to 1919 he published one of his main works - "Economic Ethics of World Religions". Of Weber's last speeches, the reports "Politics as a Profession" (1919) and "Science as a Profession" should be noted. They found their expression of Weber's mentality after the First World War. They were quite pessimistic - pessimistic, in relation to the future of industrial civilization, as well as the prospects for the implementation of socialism in Russia. He did not have any special expectations from him. He was convinced that if what is called socialism is realized, then it will only be a system of bureaucratization of society carried to the end.

Weber died in 1920, not having had time to carry out all his plans. His fundamental work "Economy and Society" (1921) was published posthumously, summarizing the results of his sociological research.

2. Basic provisions of the theory of social action

The theory of action has a stable conceptual base in sociology, the formation of which was influenced by various directions of thinking. In order to supplement or expand this theoretical foundation in order to further improve the theory, it is necessary to proceed from the current level of 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 in order for it to be effective and not lose relevance for the future. Regarding the contribution of M. Weber to the formation of the theory of action among sociologists today there is a complete mutual understanding. There is no doubt that his justification 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 manifests itself externally, for example, in the form of aggression, or is hidden inside the subjective world of a person, like suffering) as such behavior with which the acting individual or individuals associate a subjectively assumed 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 focuses on it. "And he declares the explanation of social action to be the central task. In its qualitative originality, it differs from reactive behavior, because in its it is based on subjective meaning. It is a predetermined plan or project of action. As social, it differs from reactive behavior in that this meaning is related to 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 external or internal action, non-action and or undergoing), if and insofar as the agent or agents associate with it some subjective meaning. "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 thus 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 guided by some 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. The concept of social action»

Course 3 Semester 5

Kalinicheva Ekaterina Gennadievna

Teacher

Bulanova Margarita Vernerovna

Moscow 2007

Plan

Introduction

1. Basic principles of the methodology of sociological science 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 Weberian sociology is to substantiate the possibility of the most rational behavior that manifests itself 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. in a kind of "Weberian renaissance".

The formation of the concept of historical sociology, to which M. Weber advanced throughout his entire career, was due to the rather high level of development of his contemporary historical science, the accumulation of a large amount of empirical data on social phenomena in many societies of the world. It was the close interest in the analysis of these data that helped Weber to determine his main task - to combine the general and the specific, to develop a methodology and conceptual apparatus with which to streamline the chaotic scatter of social facts.

Therefore, the study of the theory of social action by Max Weber, 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 make people act this way and not otherwise.

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

The methodological principles of Weberian sociology are closely connected with other theoretical systems characteristic of the social sciences 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 relationship to value and evaluation, which implies that science should be free from subjective value judgments. But this does not mean that the scientist should give up his own predilections; they just shouldn't interfere with scientific developments.

Unlike Rickert, who considered values and their hierarchy as something supra-historical, Weber believes that value is determined by the nature of the historical epoch, which determines the general line of progress of human civilization. In other words, values, according to Weber, express the general attitudes of their time and, therefore, are historical, relative. In Weber's concept, they are refracted in a peculiar way in categories of an ideal type, which constitute the quintessence of his methodology of the social sciences and are used as a tool for understanding the phenomena of human society and 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 study. In order to understand the real causal relationships of phenomena in society and give a meaningful interpretation of human behavior, it is necessary to construct the invalid - ideal-typical constructions extracted from empirical reality, which express what is characteristic of many social phenomena. At the same time, Weber considers ideal type not as the goal of knowledge, but as a means to reveal the "general rules of 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 makes it possible, 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 this or that historical event really proceeded. And one more thing: the ideal type, according to Weber, allows us to interpret history and sociology as two areas of scientific interest, and not as two different disciplines.

M. Weber's theory of social action (p. 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 necessary first of all to build an ideal-typical construction of a historical event, and then compare the unreal, mental course of events with their real development. Through the construction of an ideal-typical, the researcher ceases to be a simple extra of historical facts and gains the opportunity to understand how strong the influence of general circumstances was, what is the role of the impact of chance or personality at a given moment in history.

Of his methodological constructions, the concept is important understanding. He used this concept, borrowed from hermeneutics, as a method not only of interpreting the meaning and structure of author's texts, but as revealing the essence of all social reality, all human history. Arguing with the intuitionist interpretation understanding, Weber argued the rationalistic nature of this operation: rather, a systematic and accurate study, rather than simply "experiencing" a text or a 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, culturological (symbolic interactionism) and a broader, global sociological (structural functionalism) interpretation of the term "understanding".

Also in the works of Weber, the phenomena of bureaucracy and the overwhelming progressive bureaucratization (“rationalization”) of society are brilliantly studied. "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 a person who puts a certain meaning into his actions. Human action takes shape social action, if there are two moments in it: the subjective motivation of the individual and the orientation to the other (others). Understanding motivation, "subjectively implied meaning" and referring it to the behavior of other people are the necessary moments of sociological research proper, Weber notes, citing an example of a man chopping wood to illustrate his considerations. So, one can consider cutting firewood only as a physical fact - the observer understands not the cutter, but the fact that firewood is being cut. You can consider the cutter as a living being with consciousness, interpreting his movements. Finally, such a variant is also possible, when the meaning of the action subjectively experienced by the individual becomes the center of attention, i.e. questions are asked: “Is this person acting according to the developed plan? What is this 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 the life world. Social action, writes Weber, is considered to be an action whose subjective meaning 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 a lot of people open umbrellas during rain ).

And one more important remark that Weber makes: when using the concepts of "state", "community", "family", etc., we must not forget that these institutions are not really subjects of social action. Therefore, one cannot 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 the sociological understanding mean ... categories of certain types of joint activities of people, and the task of sociology is to reduce them to "understandable" behavior ... of individuals participating in this activity.

"Understanding" can never be complete and always approximate. 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, and not only in space but also in time: he analyzes the world of his predecessors on the basis of the empirical data he has.

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 a single social process is formed only in the course of representing the coordinated interaction of people. To what extent is such consistency possible given the relative understanding of each other by individuals? How is sociology as a science able to "understand" the degree of approximation in a particular interaction of people? And if a person is not aware of his own actions (due to health reasons, as a result of manipulating his consciousness with the media, or being influenced by protest passions), will a sociologist be able to understand such an individual?

The concept of "social action" is one of the central concepts in sociology. The significance of social action is due to the fact that it is the simplest unit, the simplest element of any kind of social activity of people. Indeed, even such social processes as social movements, major social conflicts, the 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 “the action of a person (regardless of whether it is external or internal, whether it comes down to non-intervention or patient acceptance), which, according to the meaning assumed by the actor or actors, correlates with the action of other people or focuses on him”

Any social action is preceded by social contacts, but in contrast to them, social action is a rather complex phenomenon.

⇐ Previous24252627282930313233Next ⇒

Publication date: 2015-01-26; Read: 124 | Page copyright infringement

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

The concept of "social action" was introduced by M. Weber, who laid the foundations for 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.

A social action is an action that is directed towards another and is associated with the expectation of a response (an action that makes sense). At the same time, social action, including non-intervention or patient acceptance, can be focused on the past, present or expected behavior of others. It can be revenge for past wrongs, protection from danger in the present, or measures to protect against imminent danger in the future. "Others" can be individuals, acquaintances, or an indefinite set of total strangers. At the same time, not all intentional actions of a person are social, just as not all actions directed at another can be considered social.

single action in Parsons' systemic functionalism is

the simplest elementary system of action, which serves as a starting point

point for constructing an analytical theory of human

Actions applicable to systems of any degree of complexity.

Action elements are:

1. sector of action;

2. purpose of action

3. Situation elements:

a) uncontrolled (conditions of the situation, norms, values, ideas, rules

b) controlled (means, methods, tactics to achieve the goal).

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

The situation always limits the effect of the factor. The choice of goal and means of achievement depend on the active conditions.

The emphasis on the situation requires understanding the relationship between two elements uncontrolled by the factor: 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 make it understand social action as an element of a wider and more comprehensive system - the system of human action in general. At the same time, the understanding of action became more and more close to the understanding of human behavior.

Not all human actions are social. That is, the achievement of not every goal involves orientation to the other (others). Example: a scientist is a naturalist. Further. Not every impact on another is a social action (imaginary social actions). Example: car, spray, driver, pedestrian. Another example: rain, people, umbrellas (massively 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 not the subject of sociology, but psychology).

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

Now about the types of social actions.

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

Purposeful action - an action that is characterized by the unambiguity and clarity of the acting subject's awareness of his goal, socially correlated with clearly meaningful means, 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. so and from the point of view of the expediency of the chosen means.

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

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

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

The main thing in such an action is the desire for immediate (or as fast as possible) satisfaction of the passion that owns the individual: revenge, lust, desire, anger and tension (which leaves no room for socio-cultural creativity.

The action is traditional- an action based on habit, which in this connection has received an almost automatic character; minimally mediated by the comprehension of the goal. It is only an automatic reaction to the habitual irritation.

Like the affective, it is "on the border" (and often outside) of what can be called "meaningfully" oriented action. Contrasted with purposeful rational action, M. Weber nevertheless assigns (compared to affective action) a more positive significance to 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 allocates the same not a boolean action. He sees it as a kind of social action. This action is due to irrational mental attitudes, emotional aspirations, instincts, and not rational considerations, although it is constantly covered by them. Caused 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 purposeful rational actions take place is a 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 of it as “social interaction” is the central category of sociology. It is social ties and especially social interactions that form the basis of society as a way of people's life.

What is a social connection?

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

Social connection is the dependence of an individual, realization 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 occurrence, we emphasize once again, is the dependence of individuals on each other in the process of satisfying their various needs. Social connection, according to the Russian Sociological Encyclopedia, is the actions of individuals and groups of individuals pursuing certain social goals in specific conditions of place and time. Social connection has a pronounced relationship between two or more social phenomena and the signs of these phenomena. The starting point, when a social connection arises, is the interaction of individuals or their groups to satisfy certain needs:

Social communication includes as its mandatory components: (1) the subject of communication (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 connection are important.

social contact- this is a connection, often accidental, not having significant significance for people's lives.

social interaction on the other hand, 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 conjugation of mutual actions of partners - this is any behavior of individuals, groups of individuals, the whole society, both at the moment and in the future. The concept expresses the nature and content of relations between people and social groups as constant carriers of qualitatively different types of activities, i.e. relations 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, 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 constant carriers of qualitatively different types of activities, i.e. relations that differ in social positions (statuses) and roles (functions). It has both objective and subjective sides.

There are three types of social interactions. These are social relations (a system of interactions, say, economic, political, etc.), social institutions (family, education, etc.), social communities (sets of individuals who are in regular and regulated relationships). Sometimes they also talk about forms of interaction, meaning that the basis for their selection is a way of coordinating 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 covert or open clash of competing parties (even war).

Interactions are further subdivided into direct and indirect (by the way, as well as connections).

Social connection, including interaction, can be thought of 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 already 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 (receive) them again 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) contractual exchange.

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

One can speak of 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 principle of "minimax");

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 (asymmetric exchange

people are different in terms of 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 action will be repeated, and vice versa;

(2) If the rewards for a particular type of action are conditional, then the person is more likely to pursue them;

(3) If the reward is large, then the person is willing 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 ⇒

Publication date: 2014-10-07; Read: 651 | Page copyright infringement

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

One of the central points of Weber's theory is the allocation of an elementary particle of the individual's behavior in society - social action, which is the cause and effect 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 subjective meaning (rationality) with him, and “social” is an action that, according to the meaning assumed by its subject, correlates with the action of other persons and is oriented on them. The scientist distinguishes four types of social action:

§ purposeful rational- the use of certain expected behavior of other people to achieve goals;

§ value-rational - understanding of behavior, action as actually value-significant, based on the norms of morality, 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, is a collection of acting individuals, each of which seeks to achieve its own goals. Meaningful behavior resulting in the achievement of individual goals leads to the fact that a person acts as a social being, in association with others, thus ensuring significant progress in interaction with the environment.

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 speak of an action oriented towards others; he calls motivation "expectation", without it the action cannot be considered as 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 is not without difficulties, all sorts of obstacles and deviations, the European history of the 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 an internal adherence to habitual mores and customs by a planned adaptation to considerations of interest."

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

Weber distinguishes three most general types, three ways of relating to the world, which contain the corresponding attitudes or vectors (orientations) of people's life, their social action.

The first of them is associated with Confucianism and Taoist religious and philosophical views, which have become widespread in China; the second - with Hindu and Buddhist, widespread in India; the third - with Judaic and Christian, which arose in the Middle East and spread in 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 attitude and way of life set the direction for subsequent rationalization, that is, different ways of moving along the path of social progress.

A very important aspect in Weber's work is the study of basic relations 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 manifested most clearly.

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

§ legal, - in which both the ruled and the rulers are subject not to any person, but to the law;

§ traditional- due primarily to the habits and customs 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, as free as possible from all sorts of personal predilections of the scientist, from political, economic, ideological influences.

The theory of social action M. Weber.

Performed:

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

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

2. The main provisions of the theory of social action………………………7

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

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

3.1 Purposeful rational behavior……………………………………………………………………………….

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

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

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

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

References…………………………………………………………........29

Introduction

The purpose of this course work– study of the theory of social action by M. Weber.

Objectives of the course work:

1. Expand the definition of social action.

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

1. Biography of M. Weber

Hobbes and especially Machiavelli made a strong impression on him with their political realism. As the researchers note, it was precisely the attraction to these two mutually exclusive poles "(on the one hand, Kant's ethical idealism with its pathos of "truth", on the other hand, political realism with its installation of "sobriety and strength") determined the peculiar duality of M. Weber's worldview.

Weber died in 1920, not having had time to carry out all his plans. His fundamental work "Economy and Society" (1921) was published posthumously, summarizing the results of his sociological research.

2. Basic provisions of the theory of social action

2.1 Social action

The goal is a significant understanding and explanation of social reality, which appears to be the result of significant social activity.

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 a meaning for the one who does it,

2) 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.

If we analyze social action as a system, the following components can be distinguished in it:

1) acting person (subject of action)
2) the object of the action (the person being acted upon)
3) a means or instrument of action
4) method of action or method of using the means of action
5) the result of the action or the reaction of the person being acted upon.

Social action should be distinguished from the concept of "behavior". Behavior is a response to action. Social action is a system of actions, means and methods by which an individual or group tries to change the behavior, attitudes or opinions of other individuals or groups.

A social action, its performance requires the subject to have a certain attitude or a strong inclination to perform a certain action.

Social action, writes Weber, is considered to be an action whose "subjective meaning refers 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 a lot of people open umbrellas during rain ).

Signs of social action:

1 . the most important sign of social action is subjective meaning - personal understanding of possible behaviors.

2 . the conscious orientation of the subject to the response of others, the expectation of this reaction, is important.

The essential components of an action are subject and an object actions.

Subject- this is the bearer of purposeful activity, the one who acts with consciousness and will.

An object- what the action is directed at.

AT functional aspect stand out action steps :

1. associated with goal setting

2. related to their operational implementation.

At these stages, organizational links are established between the subject and the object of action. The goal is an ideal image of the process and result of the action. The ability to set goals, i.e. to the ideal modeling of upcoming actions, is the most important property of a person as a subject of action.

Six types of social action by their orientation:

M. Weber identified six types of social action:

1. The correct type, in which the end and the chosen means are objectively adequate to each other and therefore strictly rational.

2. The type in which the means chosen to achieve the goal seem adequate to the subject himself. Objectively, they may not be.

3. The action is approximate, without a clearly defined goal and means, according to the principle "maybe something will work out."

4. An action that does not have an exact goal, determined by specific circumstances and understandable only in view of them.

5. An action only partially understood by its circumstances. It also includes a number of obscure elements.

6. An action that is caused by completely incomprehensible psychological or physical factors and is inexplicable from a rational position.

This classification is not contrived or speculative. It allows you to order all types of social action according to the degree of decreasing rationality, and, consequently, understandability. In fact, the transition from one type to another is almost imperceptible. But the accumulation of growing quantitative differences eventually turns the type of purposeful rational action into its opposite, into the type of irrational, practically incomprehensible, inexplicable action. Only the last two types need to be explained from a psychological point of view.

Not all types of action - including external ones - are "social" in the sense taken here. An external action cannot be called social if it is oriented only towards the behavior of material objects. An internal relationship is social only if it is oriented toward the behavior of others. So, for example, actions of a religious nature are not social if they do not go beyond the limits of contemplation, a prayer read in solitude, etc. Management (of an individual) is social only if and insofar as it takes into account the behavior of others. In the most general and formal terms, therefore, if such management reflects the recognition by third parties of the actual rights of a given individual to dispose of his economy at his own discretion. Not all types of human relationships are social in nature.

Social action is not identical to either:

a) the uniform behavior of many people (if many people on the street open umbrellas when it rains, then this (as a rule) does not mean that a person’s action is focused on the behavior of others; these are just the same type of actions to protect from rain);

b) one that is influenced by the behavior of others (it is known that a person’s behavior is strongly influenced simply by the fact that he is among a crowded “mass” of people (the subject of “mass psychology” studied in Le Bon’s work); such behavior is defined as behavior The individual can also be the object of mass influence by scattered masses of people if they influence him simultaneously or sequentially (for example, through the press), and he perceives their behavior as the behavior of many. Reactions of a certain type become possible only due to the fact that the individual feels himself to be part of the “mass”, other reactions, on the contrary, are hindered by this.)

M. Weber sought to show how the most important social facts - relations, order, connections - should be defined as special forms of social action. Another thing is that this aspiration was not actually realized. A systematic explanation of these social facts through the study of the single actions that constitute them has not taken place. Social action leads to social fact. This is Weber's most important thought. But in this case, attention should be paid to the fact that not all the facts that traditional sociology explores can be explained as certain joint actions, and also refuted through the explanation of the individual actions of the participants. These facts include the distribution of income, social ideas about values. Social ideas about the world and values that individuals strive for, ideas that, for their part, determine various phenomena - all this is at the center of attention of social science.

In the context of Weber's theory, it is necessary to understand the principles by which the process of performing an action can be explained, which implies its reduction to the corresponding motives. It is also necessary to explain the result of an action through understanding, which involves establishing and examining those actions that preceded it. Explanation of action through understanding also allows taking into account special principles and techniques for this, i.e. how to use them in each specific case. Weber's judgments regarding the explanation of actions lead to a theory of the latter, which does not pin much hope on the principle of understanding. M. Weber moves along this path, it will become clear after checking and reconstructing those specific techniques that he uses to explain action through understanding.

In order to explain the flow of action through understanding, it is necessary to limit oneself to a set of rules and requirements. Therefore, in Weber it is useful to distinguish between two points:

1. General techniques for explaining action through understanding.

2. Specific guidance on how these techniques and methods should be used in a particular case.

For Weber, the course of action is behavior under certain external conditions. Its explanation, like the explanation of any other event, must be carried out by subsuming it under a general empirical pattern with which the conditions of action are associated. In this approach, understanding will play a twofold role.

Direct explanation is preceded by a special type of understanding aimed at identifying the type of action that needs to be explained by locking its external features to the meaning or purpose of this action, which involves the use of hypotheses regarding the connection of certain external features with the corresponding purpose of the action. Direct explanation must be made by "explaining understanding." We are talking here about reducing the meaning of the action to its subjective grounds, in order to understand why the person we are interested in acts in this way, and not in another.

To discover these subjective grounds, a peculiar representation of oneself in the place of the acting individual, in the conditions in which he is located, is supposed. It is necessary to make available reflections on the ends and means that preceded the actions to be explained. This suggests that "it is necessary to make accessible and understandable the previous connection of feelings and emotions."

Weber thus believes that an action is explained by reference to a particular causal principle. For Weber, explanation is a technique in which the general rules of experience are applied. However, he expresses the idea that the basis for interpreting behavior is one's own knowledge of everyday life. Therefore, the general rules applied in the disclosure of the grounds of action reveals "their direct connection with personal experience, substantiating everyday knowledge, and therefore they are not precisely and not quite definitely formulated." Therefore, in a general interpretation of explanatory understanding, Weber draws attention to the fact that understanding occurs in the light of the general rules of everyday knowledge.

For Weber, understanding is a means to find the most obvious and adequate explanation for a given action. But the presence of an “understandably” defined cause of an action is not a condition for an adequate explanation. The latter occurs when empirical verification reveals that the found explanation is correct. How such a check should look like - Weber does not specify. With any concrete explanation of the action, he seeks to test hypotheses regarding the causal relationship of certain external situations and the subjective grounds for the action, on the one hand, and a number of grounds for the action with the corresponding action, on the other. For Weber, it is important to establish a correspondence between adequacy in meaning and verification through experience.

This test involves some statistical methods, historical comparison and, in the extreme case, a thought experiment. In this test, Weber would like to verify the assumptions applied in explaining the action as to the existence of its determinants. For example, the assumption about what goals, assessments of the situation and ideas about the actions of the participants, consistent with the goal, were contained by the actors.

The psychological understanding of other people's mental states is, according to Weber, only an auxiliary, and not the main tool for the historian and sociologist. It can be resorted to only if the action to be explained cannot be understood according to its meaning.

“In explaining the irrational moments of action, an understanding psychology can indeed render an undoubtedly important service. But this, - he emphasizes, - does not change anything in the methodological principles.

Directly most understandable in its semantic structure is an action oriented subjectively strictly rationally in accordance with the means that are considered uniquely adequate to achieve unambiguous and clearly perceived goals.

The most "understandable" action is meaningful, i.e. aimed at achieving goals clearly recognized by the acting individual himself and using to achieve these goals the means recognized as adequate by the acting individual himself. The consciousness of the acting individual is thus necessary for the action under study to act as a social reality.

When explaining an action, Weber assigns decisive importance to motives. Therefore, the typology of actions refers to the existing types of motivation. Within the framework of this approach, the individual acts as something self-evident, as an initial given. Society is a collection of people and the connections between them. Weber is interested in the formation of a certain stereotype of orientation, which is mandatory for many individuals. It presupposes the existence of corresponding values of norms. Consistency arises when the interaction participants are oriented to this stereotype. Therefore, sociology explains, understanding the meaning of the action that is summed up under it. In this context, society for Weber is something that is consciously regulated.

M. Weber considers only its goal as a determinant of action and does not pay due attention to the circumstances that make it possible. He did not indicate sufficient conditions for finding out among which action alternatives one chooses. He has no judgments about what goals of the action and in what situations the actor has, and, finally, what options for action leading to this goal the subject sees, and what type of selection he makes among them.

3. Social action theory

Weber identifies four types of activities, focusing on the possible real behavior of people in life:

- purposeful,

- value-rational,

- affective,

- traditional.

Let us turn to Weber himself: “Social action, like any action, can be defined:

1) purposefully rational, that is, through the expectation of a certain behavior of objects of the external world and other people and when using this expectation as “conditions” or as a “means” for rationally directed and regulated goals (the criterion of rationality is success);

2) value-rationally, that is, in a conscious belief in the ethical, aesthetic, religious or any other understood unconditional own 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.

Ideal types of social actions

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

3.1 Purposeful rational behavior

In "Economy and Society" it is called differently: first "rational", later - "purposeful", which reveals two distinctive features:

1. It is “subjectively goal-oriented”, i.e. due, on the one hand, to a clearly conscious purpose of the action, which does not raise doubts about its implementation. On the other hand, it is a conscious idea that the action being carried out achieves the goal at the lowest cost.

2. This action is "right oriented". This assumes that in this case the assumption is used that the action of interest to us is consistent with its goal. It depends on the fact that the subject's ideas about this situation - let's call them conditionally "ontological" knowledge - were correct, as well as the ideas about what actions he can use to achieve the intended goal. We will conditionally call these representations “monological” knowledge. Schematically, goal-oriented action can be described using the following determinants:

1. A clear understanding of the goal is crucial here in the sense that undesirable consequences for other subjective goals that may arise in the process of its implementation are called into question. This action is carried out in a given situation with the least expensive means for its implementation.

2. Purposeful rational action can be defined indirectly, due to the existence of two special determinants:

a) through correct information about the uniqueness of the given situation and the causal relationship of various actions with the implementation of the goal pursued in this situation, i.e. through correct “ontological” or “nomological” knowledge;

b) due to the conscious calculation of the proportionality and consistency of the action taken on the basis of the information available. This involves the implementation of at least four operations:

1. Rational calculation of those actions that may be possible with a certain degree of probability. They can also be means to achieve the goal.

2. A conscious calculation of the consequences of actions that can act as means, and this involves paying attention to those costs and undesirable consequences that may arise due to the frustration of other ends.

3. Rational calculation of the desired consequences of any action, which is also considered as a means. Consideration should be given to whether it is acceptable in the face of undesirable consequences.

4. Careful comparison of these actions, considering which of them lead to the goal at the lowest cost.

This model should be applied when explaining a particular action. At the same time, M. Weber outlines two fundamental classes of deviations from the model of goal-oriented action.

1. The actor proceeds from false information about the situation and about the options for action that can lead to the realization of the goal.

2. The actor shows a value-rational, affective or traditional action, which

a) is not determined through a clear awareness of the goal, casting doubt on the frustrations of other goals that arise in its implementation. They are characterized through goals that are directly implemented, without taking into account other goals.

b) Not determined by a rational calculation of the proportionality and consistency of the action relative to the situation, carried out on the basis of available information. Such actions are seen as a limitation of rationality - the further they deviate from it, the more they reveal irrational signs. Therefore, Weber identifies the non-rational with the irrational.

So, on the one hand, a value-rational action is based on a goal, the implementation of which does not take into account the consequences that need to be foreseen. On the one hand, this action is to a certain extent consistent and systematic. It follows from the establishment of those imperatives that are responsible for the choice of action alternatives.

Purpose-rationality, according to Weber, is only a methodological, and not an ontological attitude of a sociologist, it is a means of analyzing reality, and not a characteristic of this reality itself. Weber specifically emphasizes this point: “This method,” he writes, “of course, should be understood not as a rationalistic prejudice of sociology, but only as a methodological means, and, therefore, it should not be considered, for example, as a belief in the actual predominance of the rational principle over life. For it says absolutely nothing about the extent to which rational considerations determine the actual action in reality. Choosing goal-oriented action as a methodological basis, Weber thereby dissociates himself from those sociological theories that take social “totalities” as their initial reality, such as: “people”, “society”, “state”, “economy”, etc. d. In this regard, he sharply criticizes “organic sociology”, which considers an individual as part of a certain social organism, strongly objects to considering society according to a biological model: the concept of an organism as applied to society can only be a metamorphosis - nothing more.

The organicist approach to the study of society abstracts from the fact that man is a being acting consciously. The analogy between the individual and the cell of the body is possible only on the condition that the factor of consciousness is recognized as insignificant. Weber objects to this, putting forward a model of social action that accepts this factor as essential.

It is purposeful rational action that Weber serves as a model of social action, with which all other types of action are correlated. Here is the order in which Weber lists them: “there are the following types of action:

1) more or less approximately achieved correct type;

2) (subjectively) goal-oriented type;

3) action, more or less consciously and more or less uniquely goal-oriented rationally;

4) an action that is not goal-oriented, but understandable in its meaning;

5) an action, in its meaning more or less understandably motivated, but violated - more or less strongly - by the intrusion of incomprehensible elements, and, finally,

6) an action in which completely incomprehensible mental or physical facts are connected “with” a person or “in” a person by imperceptible transitions”

3.2 Value-rational behavior

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 value-rational action: the captain of a sinking ship is the last to leave, even though his life is in danger. The 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,” writes Weber, “one acts who, regardless of 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 ... "case." Value-rational action ... is always an action in accordance with the commandments or requirements that the actor considers presented to himself. In the case of a value-rational action, the purpose of the action and the action itself coincide, they are not dissected, just as in the case of an affective action; side effects, both in the first and in the second, are not taken into account.

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 actually", regardless of the system of ideas, beliefs, beliefs that have developed in a particular society. It is really not easy to obtain this kind of knowledge, you can simply approach it consistently, step by step, in the way that the positivist Comte suggests doing. 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.

3.3 Affective behavior

Affect- this is emotional excitement, which 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.

Due to the fact that this action is based on a goal, the implementation of which is not questioned with established undesirable consequences for other goals. But this goal is not long-term, as in the value-rational action, it is short-term and not stable. An affective action also has a quality that is not subjective-rational, i.e. it is not connected with rational calculation of possible alternatives of action and selection of the best of them. This action signifies a feeling-driven devotion to a goal that fluctuates and changes according to the constellation of feelings and emotions. Understanding an affectively established goal in relation to other goals in terms of their compatibility, as well as their consequences, is unproductive here.

"The individual acts under the influence of passion if he seeks immediately to 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"

3.4 traditional behavior

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.

Traditional action is associated with rules of some order, the meaning and purpose of which is unknown. With this type of action, there is a goal, for the achievement of which a certain sequence of actions is necessary. In this case, this sequence is not calculated. With the traditional orientation, the scope for rational thinking narrows due to norms prescribing, in a certain case, specific goals and means for their implementation.

However, actions defined through a stable tradition are preceded by an incomplete processing of information about the existing situation, containing a kind of “usual charm”, to which they react with a traditional action, and actions that lead to the goal in this situation.

As Weber himself points out,

"...purely traditional action... is on the very frontier, and often even beyond, what can be called 'meaningfully' oriented action."

Strictly speaking, only the first two types of action are fully social, because they deal with conscious meaning. So, speaking about the early types of society, the sociologist notes that they were dominated by traditional and affective actions, and in an industrial society - purposeful and value-rational with a tendency to dominate the first.

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.

Four of these 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 the value-rational action already contains a subjective-rational moment, 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 side effects of the act are not taken into account. The actual flowing behavior of an individual, says Weber, is usually oriented in accordance with two or more types of action: there are both goal-oriented, and value-rational, and affective, and traditional moments in it. True, in different types of societies, certain types of action may be predominant: in societies that Weber called "traditional", the traditional and affective types of orientation of action predominate, of course, two more rational types of action are not excluded. On the contrary, in an industrial society, goal-oriented action acquires the greatest importance, but all other types of orientation are present to a greater or lesser extent here as well.

Finally, Weber notes that the four ideal types do not exhaust the whole variety of types of orientation of human behavior, but since they can be considered the most characteristic, then for the practical work of a sociologist they are a fairly reliable tool.

The typology of the increase in the rationality of social action expressed, according to Weber, the objective trend of the historical process, which, despite many deviations, had a worldwide character. The increasing weight of purposeful rational action, which displaces 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 increase in the role of science, which, being the purest manifestation of rationality, becomes the basis of economics and management. Society is gradually transforming from traditional to modern, based on formal rationalism.

Conclusion

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.

In Weber's understanding, human action acquires the character social action, if there are two moments in it: the subjective motivation of the individual and the orientation towards another person. Understanding motivation and relating it to the behavior of other people are the necessary points of sociological research. Weber also identified four possible types of real behavior of people in life: goal-oriented, holistically rational, affective and traditional.

Having thus defined the meaning of social action, Weber came to the conclusion that the main provision of rationality, which is reflected in modern Weber's capitalist society, with its rational management and rational political power.

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.

The study of Weber's works allows us to draw the necessary conclusion that a person's behavior depends entirely on his worldview, and the interest that each person has in a particular activity is due to the value system that a person is guided by.

Bibliography:

1. Weber M. Basic sociological concepts // Weber M. Selected works. Moscow: Progress, 1990.

3. Gaidenko P.P., Davydov Yu.N. History and Rationality (Max Weber's Sociology and the Weberian Renaissance). Moscow: Politizdat, 1991.

4. Gaidenko P.P., Davydov Yu.N. History and Rationality (Max Weber's Sociology and the Weberian Renaissance). Moscow: Politizdat, 1991.

5. Zborovsky G.E. History of Sociology: Textbook. - M.: Gardariki, 2004.

6. History of sociology in Western Europe and the USA. Textbook for universities./ Managing editor - Academician G.V. Osipov.- M.: Publishing house NORMA, 2001

7. History of theoretical sociology. In 4 tons / holes. Ed. And the compiler Yu.N. Davydov.- M.: Kanon, 1997.

8. Aron R. Stages of development of sociological thought. –M., 1993.

9. Hoffman A.B. Seven lectures on the history of sociology. –M., 1995.

10. Gromov I. et al. Western theoretical sociology. - St. Petersburg, 1996.

11. Radugin A.A., Radugin K.A. Sociology. Lecture course. –M., 1996.

12. Sociology. Fundamentals of the general theory. Tutorial. / G.V. Osipov et al. -M., 1998.

13. Sociology. Textbook./ Ed. E.V. Tadevosyan. –M., 1995.

14. Frolov S.S. Sociology. –M., 1998.

15. Volkov Yu.G., Nechipurenko V.N., Popov A.V., Samygin S.I. Sociology: Course of lectures: Textbook. - Rostov-n / D: Phoenix, 2000.

16. Lukman T. On the sociological vision of morality and moral communication // Sociology on the threshold of the XXI century: New directions of research. Moscow: Intellect, 1998.

17. Berger P., Lukman T. Social construction of reality. Treatise on the sociology of knowledge / Per. from English. E.D. Rutkevich. Moscow: Academia-center, Medium, 1995.

18. Borovik V.S., Kretov B.I. Fundamentals of political science and sociology: Textbook. - M .: Higher school, 2001.

19. Kravchenko A.I. "Sociology of M.Weber".

20. Internet resources (, www.5ballov.ru, yandex.ru, www.gumer.ru)

"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, because, 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,” wrote Nietzsche, “requires an addition: some inner will must be introduced into it, 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 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.

The theory of social action M. Weber.

Performed:

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

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

2. The main provisions of the theory of social action………………………7

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

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

3.1 Purposeful rational behavior……………………………………………………………………………….

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

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

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

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

References…………………………………………………………........29

Introduction

The purpose of this course work– study of the theory of social action by M. Weber.

Objectives of the course work:

1. Expand the definition of social action.

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

1. Biography of M. Weber

Weber died in 1920, not having had time to carry out all his plans. His fundamental work "Economy and Society" (1921) was published posthumously, summarizing the results of his sociological research.

2. Basic provisions of the theory of social action

2.1 Social action

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 appeared, 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 call 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. The 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 general benefit - 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 in 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.