Methodology
1. Summarize how Weber understood the connection between history and sociology.
According to the textbook, Marx Weber understood the connection between history and sociology through using empirical events that took place in history and be able to convert these concepts into sociological generalizations. In doing this, Weber was able to fuse both history and sociology together; “Weber felt that historical sociology was appropriately concerned with both individuality and generality; therefore, the unification was accomplished through the development and utilization of general concepts in the study of particular individuals, event, or societies” (Ritzer & Siepnisky, 2011, p. 116 ). So, he unified the general concepts through a practice
…show more content…
“Whereas traditional authority is inherently conservative, the rise of a charismatic leader may well pose a threat to that system and lead to change because charismas is a revolutionary force because it causes a subjective or internal reorientation” (Ritzer & Siepnisky, 2011, p. 133). Therefore, the charismatic authority leads to alterations in people attitudes and actions. However, this form of authority differs from the other two because the staff of a charismatic leader lacks qualities and training compared to its leader, there is no clear form of hierarchy, the staffs work does not create a career, there are no promotions or dismissals, the leader can intervene in any situation if the staff does not perform the situation appropriately, and there is no formal rules, administration, or guides to new judgments in a charismatic …show more content…
Practical rationality “is defined as every way of life that views and judges worldly activity in relation to the individual’s purely pragmatic and egoistic interests and people who practice practical rationality accept given realities and merely calculate the most expedient ways of dealing with the difficulties that they present” (Ritzer & Siepnisky, 2011, p. 136). The next form is theoretical rationality, which involves a mental effort to master reality through abstract concepts rather than action, “it involves such abstract cognititve processes as logical deduction, induction, attribution of causality, and the life” (Ritzer & Siepnisky, 2011, p. 136). The third type of rationality is substantive; this type states that actions are ordered into patterns through groups of values in a society. “The substantive rationality involves a choice of means to ends within the context of a system of values” (Ritzer & Siepnisky, 2011, p. 136). Lastly, formal rationality involves calvuation, “but whereas in pratical rationality this calculation occurs in reference to pragmatic self interests, in formal rationality it occurs with reference to “universally applied rules, laws and regulation” (Ritzer & Siepnisky, 2011, p. 136). Therefore, based on these definitions, it is clear to see how each rationality is similar and different based on its own placements within
Social Stratification in 'Manifesto of the Communist Party' by Karl Marx and Max Weber's 'Class, Status and Party'
Three thinkers form the foundations of modern-day sociological thinking. Émile Durkheim, Karl Marx, and Max Weber. Each developed different theoretical approaches to help us understand the way societies function, and how we are determined by society. This essay will focus on the contrasts and similarities of Durkheim and Weber’s thought of how we are determined by society. It will then go on to argue that Weber provides us with the best account of modern life.
Jim Jones, Martin Luther King Jr., and Gandhi were each charismatic leaders though they were very different in what they preach. They had a gift to touch people’s hearts and change them. This change may not always be welcomed and some may see it as a test of loyalty. However, whether a person likes it or not, there will be a time when the words of another encourages them to stand up, to change, to fight. True power tends to gather around great leader.
Weber, on the other hand, tried to look at the macro-sociological phenomenon in his explanation. Weber felt that there is just more than one explanation for the causes of change. Marx’s perspective was not based on the conflict of ideas, but rather on the conflict of classes. This conflict is the result of a new mode of production. According to Marx, history would consist of epochs of modes of production.
To Marx, history d... ... middle of paper ... ... 67 Jon Elster, Making sense of Marx, Cambridge University press 1985 C.Slaughter, Marxism and the class struggle, New Park Publications LTD 1975 Tony Bilton, Kevin Bonnett, Pip Jones etc.. Introductory Sociology 4th edition, Palgrave Macmillan 2002 Gregor McLennan, The Story of Sociology Ken Morrison, Marx Durkheim Weber, Sage publications LTD 1995 Fulcher&Scott, Sociology 2nd edition, Oxford university press 2003 --------------------------------------------------------------------- [1] German Ideology, pp.8-13 [2] Karl Marx: Selected Writings in Sociology and Social Philosophy, p.150, Pelican books 1963 [3] ibid, p107 [4] Karl Marx: Selected Writings in Sociology and Social Philosophy, p.177, Pelican books 1963 [5] Essential writings of Karl Marx; p176; Panther Books Ltd ,1967
Living in a social world, it can only be expected that there will be multiple views on how a society should be run, how we as a society should behave, and how our societies should be represented. In learning about Karl Marx, Max Weber, and Emile Durkheim, there are many different views and beliefs that can be used to view our social world. Although the three of these men believed in different things and had many different theories in regards to our social world, there are few similarities that can be expressed. Marx was said to be a materialist due to his views that the social life was fundamentally about material goods (food, money and land etc.) as well as having a set of shared values. Weber, on the other hand, was a rationalist because
According to Max Weber, there are three types of authority: traditional, legal-rational, and charismatic. Traditional authority is based on traditions and customs; for example, parents are a type of traditional authority since individuals are taught to respect and listen to their parents from a young age (Weber, 12). Legal-rational authority is based on relation to laws, rules, and the government; an example of a legal-rational authority would be the police due to its association with the government and its task of enforcing the law (Weber, 13). Unlike these two types of authority, charismatic authority is solely based on the personality of the leader such as the degree of charisma the leader has and how well his interpersonal skills are (Weber, 12). Charismatic authority may seem very simplistic as it is just based on personality, yet it is this very aspect that allows for the emergence of polar-opposite charismatic leaders. Furthermore, the simple basis allows for the leaders to guide the group towards any direction they desire, and this makes the distinction between certain charismatic leaders prominent. The contrast
Avolio, B. J., & Yammarino, F. J. (Eds.). (2013). Transformational and Charismatic Leadership:: the Road Ahead. Emerald Group Publishing.
Each of the four classical theorists Marx, Weber, Durkheim, and Simmel had different theories of the relationship between society and the individual. It is the objective of this paper to critically evaluate the sociological approaches of each theory to come to a better understanding of how each theorist perceived such a relationship and what it means for the nature of social reality.
Comparing Weber's and Durkheim's Methodological Contributions to Sociology This essay will be examining the methodological contributions both Durkheim and Weber have provided to sociology. It will briefly observe what Positivists are and how their methodologies influence and affect their research. It will also consider what interpretative sociology is, and why their type of methodology is used when carrying out research. It will analyse both Durkheim's study of Suicide and also Webers study of The Protestant work ethic, and hopefully establish how each methodology was used for each particular piece of research, and why. Emile Durkhiem, in sociology terminology is considered to be a Functionalist, in addition to also being a Positivist, however, strictly speaking, Durkheim was not a Positivist.
A charismatic leader uses power to serve others; aligns vision with followers’ needs and aspirations; considers and learns from criticism; stimulates followers to think independently and to question the leader's view; uses open, two-way communication; coaches, develops, and supports followers; shares recognition with others; relies on internal moral standards to satisfy organizational and societal interests. (Howell & Avolio, 2011)
Marx also focused on the alienation of individuals from society due to capitalism. He saw it as the people were separate from their labor. In older times, people had a trade that they were good at and it described them but after capitalism came into play then their labor just became a job and was no longer personal. Neither Durkheim nor Weber believed this to be so. This is also a difference between them. ( Ritzer, 2004) Marx also tended to go more into depth about the capital and co...
The Sociological Contribution of Karl Marx to an Understanding of Contemporary Society. This essay will discuss how the Karl Marx contributed his knowledge to the understanding of contemporary society. Karl Marx is often referred to. as the ‘intellectual father of modern day Marxist economics’.
In this style of leadership, the charm of such an individual makes their followers seek their leadership without questioning them. Charismatic leaders are essentially very good communicators. They are able to relate and communicate with their followers in ways that a normal everyday individual would not be able to. Charismatic leaders are not only able to co...
Charismatic Power – The ability to influence followers based on the leaders personality. Politicians often use this kind of power to get follower’s to support them.