1. Brief biographical sketch and general characteristics of sociological teaching

2. Theory of social action

3. Understanding sociology of M. Weber

4. The doctrine of ideal types

5. Teaching about types of domination

6. The principle of rationality and the theory of capitalism by M. Weber

7. Sociology of religion

8. References

1. Brief biographical sketch and general characteristics of sociological teaching

The great German sociologist Max Weber (1864-1920) was born in Erfurt.

His father was a lawyer, from a family of industrialists and merchants involved in the textile business in Westphalia. The mother was a highly educated and cultured woman, she was very involved in religious and social issues.

In 1882, Weber entered the Faculty of Law at one of the best German universities of that time - Heidelberg. Along with jurisprudence, he studies philosophy, history, economics, theology, i.e. those disciplines within which he will subsequently engage in scientific creativity. During the third semester, Weber was called up for military service. He spent a year in Strasbourg, first as a soldier and then as an officer. In 1884, he resumed his studies - first at the University of Berlin and then at the University of Göttingen.

In 1886, Weber took the first university exams in jurisprudence. Following this, he began to actively engage in politics, joining the Society for Social Policy, which included representatives of the university intelligentsia who were interested in relevant issues of social life. In 1890-1892 At the request of the Society, Weber conducts an empirical sociological study - a survey on the situation of the cross and agricultural workers in East Prussia. He shows that large landowners, in order to reduce wage costs, did not hesitate to import Russians and Poles into their estates, thus forcing native Germans to migrate to Western lands and industrial cities.

The main task was to clarify the development trends of the German nation and how processes in the eastern lands contribute to (hinder) this.

In 1889, he defended his dissertation in Berlin on the history of trading societies in the Middle Ages. This was his first dissertation. Two years later, he writes and defends his dissertation on the topic “Roman agrarian history and its significance for public and private law.” In 1893 he married Marianne Schnittger, and in 1894 he became a professor in the department of political economy at the University of Freiburg. In the same year, his book on the materials of the research of 1890-1892 was published. entitled “Trends in the Conditions of East German Agricultural Workers.” In 1896, He took over the department at the University of Heidelberg.

In 1904, in the journal he created, Weber published the first part of “The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism”, the following year - the second part of this work. The attention of the German sociologist is drawn to the Russian Revolution of 1905. In 1906, a series of his articles devoted to Russia (about bourgeois democracy, imaginary constitutionalism, etc.) were published. After receiving the inheritance, in 1908 Weber organized the German Association of Sociologists and published a series of works on the social sciences. In 1909, he began to write his main sociological book, “Economy and Society,” which would be published after the scientist’s death by his wife. In 1910, he participated in the congress of the German Society of Sociologists and spoke at it with a clear anti-racist position. Weber is elected to the society's steering committee.

During the war years, the scientist writes and publishes very significant works concerning the entire sociology of religion. These are “The Economic Ethics of World Religions” (1915), several chapters of “The Sociology of Religion” (1916). All sociological studies of religion by Weber were combined into a three-volume work, which examined Protestantism, Judaism, Buddhism, Confucianism, Taoism, and Hinduism.

In 1918, Weber went to Vienna to lecture at the university's summer courses, in which he outlined his understanding of the sociology of politics and religion. In the winter of the same year, he received an invitation to give two reports at the University of Munich, “Science as a Vocation and Profession” and “Politics as a Vocation and Profession.” In 1919, he took over the department of social and economic sciences at this university and headed it until the middle

1920 In Munich, the sociologist continues to work on the book “Economy and Society.”

In June 1920, Weber dies.

2. Theory of social action

According to Weber, sociology should consider the behavior of an individual or group of individuals as the starting point of its research. An individual and his behavior are, as it were, a “cell” of sociology, its “atom,” that simplest unity that itself is not subject to further decomposition and splitting.

Weber clearly connects the subject of this science with the study of social action: “Sociology... is a science that seeks, through interpretation, to understand social action and thereby explain the process and impact [Scheber.1990, P.602]. Further, the scientist argues that sociology is not concerned with just “social action,” but it represents its central problem, constitutive for it as a science” [Ibid. P. 627]. The concept of “social action” in Weber’s interpretation is derived from action, which is understood as such human behavior, in the process of which the acting individual puts subjective meaning into it. This means that action is a person’s understanding of his own behavior.

“Social action” Weber calls an action that, according to the meaning assumed by the actor or actors, correlates with the action of other people and is oriented towards it” [Ibid. P.603]. Consequently, social action is not just “self-oriented”, it is oriented, first of all, towards others. Weber calls orientation toward others “expectation,” without which action cannot be considered social.

Weber gives an example: “people open their umbrellas at the same time, but this does not mean that individuals orient their actions to the actions of other people, just that their behavior is equally caused by the need to hide from the rain. This means that an action that is determined by an orientation toward some natural phenomenon cannot be considered social. Weber considers social and imitative action performed by an individual in a crowd.

Therefore, social action includes two aspects:

a) subjective motivation of an individual (individuals, groups of people);

b) orientation towards others (the other), which Weber calls “expectation”, without which action cannot be considered as social. Its main subject is the individual. Sociology can consider collectives (groups) only as derivatives of the individuals that compose them. They (collectives, groups) represent ways of organizing the actions of individuals.

Social action in Weber appears in four types: goal-rational, value-rational, affective, traditional. Purposeful action is an action that is based “on the expectation of a certain behavior of objects in the external world and other people, and the use of this expectation as “conditions” or “means” to achieve one’s rationally set and thoughtful goal” [Weber. 1990. P. 628].

Rational in relation to the goal, goal-oriented action is the action of: an engineer who builds a bridge; a speculator who seeks to make money; In all these cases, goal-directed behavior is determined by the fact that its subject sets a clear goal and uses appropriate means to achieve it.

Value-based rational action is based “on faith in an unconditional - theoretical, religious or any other - self-sufficient value, regardless of what it leads to [Ibid. P. 628]. Rational in relation to value, a value-rational act was committed, for example, by the captain who drowned, refusing to leave his ship during the wreck. The subject acts rationally, taking risks not to achieve an externally fixed result, but out of loyalty to his own idea of ​​\u200b\u200bhonor.

Affective action is an action caused by the affects or emotional state of the individual. According to Weber, affective action is on the border and often beyond the limit of what is “meaningful” [Ibid. P. 628]. Action, behavior, deed, which Weber calls affective, are determined solely by the mental state or mood of the individual. A mother may hit her child because he is behaving intolerably. In this case, the action is determined not by a goal or a value system, but by the emotional reaction of the subject in certain circumstances.

A traditional action is an action based on a long-term habit. Weber writes: “Most of the habitual everyday behavior of people is close to this type, which occupies a certain place in the systematization of behavior...” [Ibid. P. 628]. Traditional behavior is dictated by customs, beliefs, and habits that have become second nature. The subject of the action acts according to tradition, he does not need to set a goal, or define values, or experience emotional arousal, he simply obeys the reflexes that have been ingrained in him over a long period of practice.

Considering Weber's four types of action, it should be noted that the last two of them are not social in the strict sense of the word, since we are not dealing here with the conscious meaning of affective and traditional behavior. Weber says that they are not at the very limit, but often even beyond the limit of what can be called meaningfully oriented action.

Weber proves that the role of the first type is constantly increasing. This is manifested in the rational organization of the economy, management, and lifestyle in general. The social role of science, which represents the purest embodiment of the principle of rationality, is growing. Weber considers all previous, pre-capitalist types to be traditional, since they lack a formal rational principle. Its presence is associated with Weber’s understanding of capitalism, with what can be accurately and strictly accounted for.

At the same time, Weber understands that his classification of types of behavior is limited to a certain extent and does not exhaust all options and types of action. In this regard, he writes: “Action, especially social, is very rarely focused only on one or another type of rationality [Ibid. P. 630].

3. Understanding sociology of M. Weber

M. Weber, and behind him his followers and researchers, defines his sociology as understanding. When explaining natural phenomena, people resort to judgments confirmed by human experience in order to have a feeling that they understand them. Understanding is achieved through establishing connections between them. Moreover, these natural phenomena themselves have no meaning:

Another is human behavior: The professor understands the behavior of students, I listen to his lectures; the passenger understands why the taxi driver does not run the red light. Human behavior, in contrast to the “behavior” of nature, is an outwardly manifested meaningfulness associated with the fact that people are endowed with reason. Social behavior (social action) contains a meaningful construct.

The scope of sociological understanding is limited to the actions and behavior of individuals.

The point is that Weber proclaims that the specific object of understanding sociology is not the internal state or external attitude of a person as such, taken in itself, but his action. Action is always an understandable (or understandable) attitude towards certain objects, an attitude that is characterized by the fact that it presupposes the presence of a certain subjective meaning.

Weber dwells on three aspects that characterize the presence of explainable human behavior and the meaning attached to it. In this regard, he writes: “Specifically important for understanding sociology is behavior that, firstly, according to the meaning subjectively assumed by the actor, is correlated with the behavior of other people, secondly, it is also determined by this meaningful behavior and, thirdly, can be , based on this intended meaning, is clearly explained."

Understanding in its pure form takes place where there is purposeful, rational action.

We are talking about such behavior when the individual is not aware of what he is doing, then the question arises: does the sociologist have sufficient grounds to claim that he understands the acting individual better than he understands himself?

In a goal-oriented action, for Weber, the meaning of the action and the actor himself coincides: to understand the meaning of an action means in this case to understand the acting individual, and to understand him means to understand the meaning of his action. Weber considered such a coincidence to be the ideal case for which sociology as a science should be developed.

In Weber's understanding sociology, the problem of value and evaluation occupies an important place. Evaluation is subjective in nature, while value turns our individual opinion into an objective and generally valid judgment. Science, according to Weber, should be free from value judgments. Value is a kind of “absolute” of time.

Each time gives birth to its own values, its own “absolutes”. In this sense they are historical, changeable and relative.

An evaluative (value) judgment is a subjective statement of a moral or life order, while attribution to a value is the content of objective science. In this distinction one can see the difference between political and scientific activities. We understand the action of a woodcutter chopping down a forest, or a hunter taking aim to shoot an animal. Explanatory understanding means identifying the motivational meaning of an action.

“They show what a certain human behavior would be like if it were strictly goal-oriented, free from delusions and affects, and oriented toward economics.”

4. The doctrine of ideal types

Understanding in the sociology of M. Weber is closely related to the category of the ideal type, which serves as the basis for the entire system of scientific concepts with which the scientist operates. The ideal type is a manifestation of a peculiar “interest of the era”, a mental construction, a peculiar theoretical scheme, which, strictly speaking, is not extracted from empirical reality. Therefore, it is no coincidence that Weber calls the ideal type a utopia. He points out: “In its content, this construction has the character of a utopia, obtained through the mental strengthening of certain elements of reality.” The ideal type is not found in the most everyday reality (for example, capitalism, the city, Christianity, economic man, etc.). It is created by scientists as a tool for understanding historical reality and the modern world. For Weber, the formation of abstract ideal types acts not as a goal, but as a means of scientific knowledge and understanding. In this regard, the following reasoning by a German sociologist is of significant interest: “In research, the ideal-typical concept is a means for making a correct judgment. The ideal type only indicates in which direction the formation of hypotheses should go” [Ibid. P. 389].

He points out the need to abandon the ideal type's claim to fulfill the ought function, just as empirical sociology abandons this.

Weber understood that the ideal type is a certain simplification and idealization of social phenomena and processes. Moreover, he believed that the more abstract and unrealistic the ideal type is, the better it is able to fulfill its methodological functions, the more useful it is to use it as a means of classifying specific phenomena and processes both in a historical context, and especially in the study of current society : “The ideal type of a certain social state, constructed by abstracting a number of characteristic social phenomena of the era, can - and this indeed often happens - appear to contemporaries as a practical ideal to which one should strive, or, in any case, as a maxim regulating certain social relations” [There same. P. 395].

Weber seeks to show how ideal types are formed, created and interconnected. One such example connects three ideal types: “craft”, “capitalist economy”, “capitalist culture”. It is possible, abstracting certain features of modern large-scale industry, to contrast the ideal type of “craft” with the ideal type of capitalist economy as an antithesis and then try to draw a utopia of “capitalist” culture, i.e. a culture where only the interests of realizing private capital dominate. It must combine individual features of material and spiritual life.

One of the main and controversial problems of Weber's sociology is to answer the question: how is the ideal type constructed - from knowledge or from empirical reality? On the one hand, the scientist says that the ideal type is a utopia, our fantasy (in the sense that it does not exist in a specific, individual form. On the other hand, ideal types emerge from reality itself by highlighting and strengthening those aspects that seem typical to the researcher For example, K. Marx, characterizing capitalism, identified as its main features the presence of exploitation, private ownership of the means of production, etc.

To resolve the contradiction regarding the origin of ideal types (from consciousness or from reality), the scientist introduces their distinction into historical and sociological. The first deals with living history, from which “ideal-typical” concepts are derived, the second “sociological ideal type” means deriving concepts as theoretical constructs directly from the thinking of a scientist.

Sociological ideal types are more general than historical types; they serve as a tool for sociological research. Pure types are more suitable for research the more pure they are.

Genetic ideal types differ from sociological (pure) types not only in nature, nature of origin, but also in the degree of generality. The genetic type is applied in time and space, while the sociological type has universal applicability.

The contradictions that arose in Weber in connection with the formation of ideal-typical concepts are associated with different functions and different origins of ideal types. In sociology, the ideal type performs the function of detecting the typical, natural in phenomena and processes.

5. Teaching about types of domination

By domination he understood the mutual abandonment: of those who command, that their orders will be carried out and they will be obeyed; those who obey, that the orders will be of a nature consistent with their expectations. The doctrine of domination is reasoning about legitimate domination, about one that is recognized by the controlled individuals.

Weber speaks of three types of legitimate domination, distinguished in accordance with the three main motives of obedience. The first motive is the interests of those who obey, i.e. their purposive considerations. This is the basis of what Weber calls the “legal” type of domination, which can be found in developed bourgeois states - England, France, the USA, etc. In these countries, people are not subject to individuals, but to laws. In such countries, the “formal legal” principle prevails.

The purest type of legal domination is bureaucracy. Weber was the first to develop this concept in scientific literature. He viewed bureaucratic management as domination through knowledge. This domination contained its specifically rational character. He wrote about it this way: “No machine in the world can work with such precision as this human machine, and besides, it costs so little!”

Bureaucratic domination for the sociologist meant the power of officials, and everywhere: in economic life, political movements, and most importantly - in the management of society. Commandments of bureaucracy: Officials are eternally free people and perform only certain functions. They are selected on the basis of professional qualities. They are appointed, not elected. Officials are rewarded with a fixed salary and are entitled to a pension. The official does not have any ownership of the administration's funds and works without lifetime assignment of his position. He is subject to strict discipline and control over his behavior in the service. A system of professional promotion of officials (career) is provided.

The second type of legitimate domination is based on faith not only in legality, but even in sacredness, but even in the sacredness of orders and authorities. It is based on everyday mores, habits of certain behavior. Weber calls this type traditional domination. The purest type of such domination (ideal type).

Patriarchal (“master” - “subjects” - “servants”). The patriarchal type is in many ways similar to the structure of relations of dominance and subordination in the family. The similarity between the traditional type of dominance and family relationships is also determined by personal loyalty and devotion. In the traditional type of dominance in any field of activity, when appointing a position, the nature of the relationship is always purely personal.

The third type of dominance has an affective basis of motivation; Weber called it charismatic. He wrote: “Charisma” should be called a personality quality that is recognized as extraordinary, thanks to which he is assessed as gifted with supernatural, superhuman powers. Charisma is seen as God-sent. “God’s gift” (charisma) is a special ability that distinguishes an individual from others. Charismatic qualities are largely magical qualities, which include the prophetic gift and outstanding power of speech.

Heroes, generals, prophets, magicians, outstanding politicians and statesmen, founders of world religions (Buddha, Jesus, Mohammed) have charisma. Charisma, according to Weber, is the great revolutionary force on which domination and control rests... Charismatics are: Pericles, and Alexander the Great, Caesar, Genghis Khan, and Napoleon.

The German sociologist sees similarities and differences between charismatic and traditional types of legitimate domination. The commonality is that both rely on personal relationships between the master and his subordinates. In this regard, both types are opposed to the first - formal-rational, where impersonal relationships reign. The differences between the types of dominance are as follows: the traditional type is based on habit. The charismatic relies on something extraordinary, never before recognized. Under charismatic dominance there are no established (rational or traditional) rules.

The three types of domination correspond roughly to three of the four types of social action. The legal type of domination correlates with goal-oriented action, the traditional type - with traditional action. Motivation lies at the heart of both types of dominance and types of action. The concept of value-rational action (for example, honor) is usually mentioned as one of the main ones, but is not present in the typology of types of domination.

Types of domination are realized only in the sphere of political power and management and therefore cannot be as broad and universal as ideal types.

6. The principle of rationality and the theory of capitalism by M. Weber

The sociologist was convinced that the rationalization of social action is a tendency of the historical process itself. This means that the way of farming, management in all areas of life, and the way of thinking of people are rationalized.

As a result of the rationalization trend, a new type of society arose for the first time in Europe, which modern sociologists defined as industrial. Its main feature, according to Weber, is the dominance of the formal-rational principle, i.e. something that did not exist in all traditional societies that preceded capitalism. Consequently, the main criterion for distinguishing pre-capitalist types of society from capitalist ones, according to Weber, is the absence of a formal rational principle.

Formal rationality is an ideal type that corresponds to the predominance of the goal-oriented type of action over others. It is inherent not only in the organization of the economy, management, and lifestyle in general. It characterizes the behavior of an individual and a social group. Then the formal rational principle becomes the basic principle. The doctrine of formal organization is Weber's theory of capitalism. This theory is related to the theory of social action and the doctrine of types of domination.

The sociologist considered the behavior of an individual in the economic sphere to be its purest example and concrete manifestation. For example: exchange of goods, or stock exchange game, or competition in the market.

A modern rational organization is focused on the product market. It, according to Weber, “is unthinkable without the division dominant in modern economics: enterprises from households.” [Ibid. P. 51].

Sources of economic differences in the social structure include, according to Weber, professional skills, qualifications, knowledge, and skills, which are valued very highly and have a significant impact on the place and position of a person (group) in society. This means that people with work experience can earn incomes above the normal salary level, even without owning property (say, lawyers, managers, doctors), as a result of which they have the opportunity to get into high-status groups.

Status itself is determined through differences between individuals and social groups in terms of the social prestige they have relative to each other.

Weber's concept of social structure was closely related to his theory of social action. In accordance with it, the development of society is a process of rationalizing the actions of individuals, strengthening the goal-oriented type of behavior, one of the main components of which is the achievement of professional excellence and corresponding status. The German sociologist concludes that there is a rapid growth in the layer of people who have property, but have high professionalism, allowing people to earn a large income. This layer serves as the basis of the “middle class”.

The emerging middle class: includes owners of production and people who do not have them, but receive significant income due to professional competence and its successful implementation.

Practical evidence led to the fact that his concept of social structure had a very great impact on the development of sociology.

Weber analyzed social groups based on their prestige, power, status, and described conflicts between them. He saw the strengthening of the bureaucracy and the bureaucratic apparatus and predicted the establishment of a dictatorship.

7. Sociology of religion

Capitalist society, relations in it and economic activity are considered by Weber in close connection with religion. If for most of his predecessors and contemporaries the analysis of religion took on a self-sufficient and self-sufficient character, then in his work sociological science for the first time encountered the identification of a close connection between religion and society. In “The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism” (1904), Weber first established the connection between religion and economics. It shows how religious and ethical attitudes influence the nature and method of carrying out economic activity, its motivation, and how certain types of farming change religious and ethical principles. He seeks to prove that it was religious beliefs and religious ethics that turned out to be the main incentives for the development of the capitalist economy and ensured the formation of such personality traits as hard work, frugality, honesty, and activity. It is no coincidence that today Western sociology is showing great interest in precisely this side of Weber’s work. In developed capitalist countries, many believe that the spirit of capitalism and religious ethics is losing its stimulating potential.

In Weber's sociology of religion, the correlation between the spirit of capitalism and the spirit of Protestantism is clearly expressed. One of the main commandments of the latter is that in this sinful world the believer must work for the good of the cause of God. The work ethic of Protestantism and the development needs of capitalist society coincided in essence. Moral and religious responsibility became very close. The discovery and analysis of the connection between them is characteristic of Weber’s entire sociology of religion.

The German sociologist contrasts Protestantism as an anti-traditional religion with Catholicism as a traditional form of religiosity. The difference here is that Protestantism places on the individual communication with God without intermediaries and without a magical element. A person is independent everywhere and must only follow the basic commandment: “Work and pray, pray and work.” The Protestant religion helps to understand the economic behavior of people. And although Weber’s religious perception of the world acquires an independent, self-valuable and self-sufficient meaning, it (the religious interpretation of the world) becomes for him part of the overall picture of people’s behavior in society.

It characterizes religion and religious ethics not only in connection with economic and economic life and activity, but also with art, philosophy, science, power, etc. The main thing here for a sociologist is to understand the meaning of the actions performed by an individual, i.e. motives of human behavior taking into account the religious aspect. At the same time, Weber is interested only in those world religions that imply a relatively high level of social differentiation and significant intellectual development of people.

Bibliography

1. G.E. Zborovsky. History of sociology. Moscow. Gaydariki, 2004

2. Volkov Yu.G., Nechipurenko V.N., Samygin S.I. Sociology: history and modernity. Rostov n/d., 1999.

3. Gromov I.L. Matskevich A.Yu., Semenov V.A. Western theoretical sociology. C.I.

1996. Simmel G. Communication: an example of pure or formal sociology // Sociol. Research 1984. No. 2.

4. Weber V. // Sociol. magazine 1994. Selected: In 2 volumes. M., 1996. The problem of sociology. Conflict of our time. M., 1996.

5. Gromov I.L. Philosophy of money // Theory of Society. M., 1999. History of sociology. Minsk, 1993.

6. History of sociology in Western Europe and the USA. M., 1999.

Facts from the biography of M. Weber. His professional path. Sociological concept of Max Weber.
Weber's Sociology Briefly.

Abstract on the topic: Sociology of Max Weber

Biography facts

Max Weber(1864-1920) was born in Erfurt into the family of a large capitalist. His father was a member of the Reichstag. He grew up in Berlin and considered himself a member of the bourgeoisie. Studied in Heidelberg, Gottingen. He passed the law exam in 1886 and defended his dissertation in 1891. Since 1893 he has taught in Freiburg. In 1896 he was invited to Heidelberg. In 1897 he had his first breakdown. In 1901 he recovered, but retired from teaching. He lived on the money of his mother and wife. Died in Munich.

Professional path

Protestantism and Calvinism, organized as a sect, give rise to capitalism. In 1905 he lived in America with Ernst Troeltsch. Since 1903, together with Edgar Jaffe, he has edited the Archives of Social Science and Social Policy. He studied Confucianism, Taoism, Hinduism, Buddhism and Judaism. “Where there is no Protestantism, there is no capitalism.” The process of rationalization includes: industrialization, bureaucratization, intellectualization, specialization, capitalism, discipline, secularization. Views are scattered, there is no system, but the formulations and definitions have become classic. Main works: “Protestant Ethics and the Spirit of Capitalism” (1905), “Collected Works on the Sociology of Religion” (1920), “Economy and Society” (1921).

Sociological concept of Max Weber

Sociological concept of Max Weber often called understanding sociology ( Sociology of M. Weber). He is also credited with the authorship of the theory of social action, according to which the main task of sociology is to study the rational meaning in people's actions. Weber identified the following social actions:

Affective;

Traditional;

Value-rational;

Goal-rational.

As society develops, the share of rationality in people's actions is constantly growing, so purposeful rational actions prevail in modern society.

Weber introduced the concept of an ideal type, which does not exist in reality, but is very important for its theoretical understanding. This is a kind of scale for social measurements that helps to understand a large amount of empirical data and correctly formulate the goals and objectives of specific sociological studies.

Studying modern capitalism in the United States and Western Europe, Max Weber came to the conclusion that Protestantism played an important role in its origins. The process of rationalization of society changes the religious picture of the world. The influence of science is growing. The ethic of responsibility replaces the ethic of conviction. Condemning pleasure, but not allowing one to renounce the world, Protestantism considered the task of every person to be subjugated by the external conditions of life. From this worldview the concept of “vocation” arose. The only way to become pleasing to God is, according to Weber, not to neglect worldly morality from the heights of monastic asceticism, but exclusively to fulfill worldly duties. This attitude makes entrepreneurship a business pleasing to God. Max Weber believed that it is religion that is the basis for economic development, and not vice versa, as Karl Marx previously believed.

Weber puts forward the thesis that Protestantism is at the heart of the development of the capitalist economy. The idea of ​​vocation plays an important role in the development of capitalism, especially ascetic Protestantism of the Calvinist persuasion. The Calvinist religious worldview creates the spiritual prerequisites for the formation of two main factors of capitalism: a rational attitude towards the world and a special attitude towards work, when the goal of the capitalist’s efforts is to extract profit, which is not used for consumption, but to create even greater profits in the future.

Weber studied the problem of the relationship between religious ideas and economic relations (collected works on the sociology of religion). He finds out that the Chinese worldview is based on the idea of ​​the world as a strictly organized system, where everything is interconnected, subject to immutable laws and has its own measure. Rationalization here leads to the fact that a person works exactly as much as he needs to satisfy his usual, traditional needs. No one and nothing should exceed their limits. The basis of Indian religion is the doctrine of transmigration of souls. Here everyone is forever tied to a certain caste and has no opportunity to move to another. In both cultures, according to Weber, the development of capitalism is difficult. He had the same opinion about the possibilities for the development of capitalism in Russia.

Depending on what basic worldview underlies religion, Weber divides them into three groups:

Adaptation to the world (Confucianism, Taoism);

Running from the world (Hinduism, Buddhism);

Preaching mastery of the world (Christianity). Each religion has its own type of rationality. The degree of rationality is inversely proportional to the magical element.

In his work “The Economic Ethics of the World's Religions” (1920), Weber explores Protestantism and sectarianism. As religion develops, the collective principle decreases, and the individual principle increases. Weber identifies the following motives for religious actions:

Ritualistic-cult;

Ascetic-active;

Mystical-contemplative;

Intellectual and dogmatic.

Sectarians have high moral standards. They help each other in business, give each other interest-free loans.

Important Contribution German sociologist contributed to the sociology of politics. For Weber, politics is the desire to participate in power or to influence the distribution of power. The state is a relationship of domination of people over people, associated with a monopoly on legitimate violence. He formulated the problem of the legitimacy of political domination and identified three types of legitimacy: traditional, legal and charismatic.

In an effort to improve the German democratic system, Max Weber put forward a number of practical recommendations. In particular, he suggested that in order to fight bureaucracy, the leader of the state should directly appeal to the people. This is a summary of Weber's sociology.

	To download work you need to join our group for free In contact with. Just click on the button below. By the way, in our group we help with writing educational papers for free. A few seconds after checking your subscription, a link to continue downloading your work will appear.
	Free estimate
	Promote originality of this work. Bypass Antiplagiarism.
	REF-Master- a unique program for independent writing of essays, coursework, tests and dissertations. With the help of REF-Master, you can easily and quickly create an original essay, test or coursework based on the finished work - Max Weber's Sociology. The main tools used by professional abstract agencies are now at the disposal of abstract.rf users absolutely free of charge!
	How to write correctly introduction? Secrets of the ideal introduction of coursework (as well as essays and diplomas) from professional authors of the largest essay agencies in Russia. Find out how to correctly formulate the relevance of the topic of work, define goals and objectives, indicate the subject, object and methods of research, as well as the theoretical, legal and practical basis of your work.
	Secrets of the ideal conclusion of a thesis and term paper from professional authors of the largest essay agencies in Russia. Find out how to correctly formulate conclusions about the work done and make recommendations for improving the issue being studied.

(coursework, diploma or report) without risks, directly from the author.

Similar works:

10/7/2009/abstract

Max Weber is one of the founders of the sociological style of thinking. His socio-political views and theoretical positions. Methodological and epistemological principles of sociology, the concept of social action. Sociology of power and religion.

10.30.2009/test work

Basic principles of the methodology of sociological science of one of the most influential theorists M. Weber. Social action as a subject of sociology, the study of individual behavior. Weber's theory of rationalization in sociological interpretations of politics and religion.

04/06/2010/test work

Consideration of the formation, functioning and development of small groups. Definition of the concept and main features of the team and small groups, the role of the socio-psychological climate. Conflicts, formal and informal leadership, group norms and values.

24.11.2009/abstract

Definition of the term "sociology of medicine". Specifics of sociological analysis of healthcare. Interaction of medicine with society and social institutions. Reduced incidence of diseases. "Mechanisms of social conditioning" of public health.

4.08.2008/test work

The concept of "youth". Analysis of various segments of the population. Questions of social reality. Youth development. The problem of youth subculture and its place in modern Russian society. Cultural needs: work, leisure, family relationships.

IN

F. GOROKHOV

Moscow Engineering Physics Institute (State University)
MAX WEBER ABOUT SCIENCE
The views of the classic sociologist on the content of scientific activity are considered. Weber's ideal type of scientist, the problem of scientific ethics and the meaning of science are explored. Attention is focused on issues of scientific specialization and the progress of science. Weber's vision of science as a profession and vocation is analyzed. The importance of M. Weber's ideas for a modern scientist is shown.
The German scientist Max Weber (1864–1920) is perceived by the scientific community as an outstanding sociologist, lawyer, historian, economist, philosopher, and cultural scientist. He left a noticeable mark on almost all areas of social science, and his works have been considered classics for almost a century. Natural science interests were not alien to him either. A figure of such stature as M. Weber, of course, could not help but be interested in the fundamental problems of science as such, its role and place in public life. A close analysis of M. Weber’s works allows us to assert that science was one of the main subjects of the classic’s research creativity.

M. Weber actualized the problem of science in almost every one of his works. In addition, at the beginning of 1918 he made a famous report to students at the University of Munich to show what their calling was as future scientists and teachers. The report was called “Science as a Vocation and Profession” and actually became a kind of programmatic manifesto of M. Weber’s scientific views. This report received wide resonance in scientific and educational circles.

But researchers of his work also consider this report more broadly. It reveals M. Weber’s desire to actualize the problem of transforming spiritual life into spiritual production and to consider related issues of the division of labor in the sphere of spiritual activity, changing the role of the intelligentsia in society, and finally, the fate of European society and European civilization in general.

As for the actual views on science, its essence, significance, functions, and the role of the scientist, they are summarized as follows.

From the point of view of M. Weber, “today science is a profession carried out as a special discipline and serving the cause of self-awareness and knowledge of factual connections, and not at all a merciful gift of seers and prophets, bringing salvation and revelation, and not an integral part of the reflection of sages and philosophers about sense peace."

Science has both practical and purely intellectual significance. Firstly, science first of all, develops, Certainly, life mastery technique- both external things and the actions of people - by calculation. Secondly, the science develops methods of thinking, working tools and develops skills in handling them. Third, she promotes clarity. Of course, provided that the scientists themselves have it. Science searches for the sake of purely practical, more broadly - technical purposes, in order to orient our practical actions in accordance with the expectations that scientific experience tells us. But people do science not only for practical purposes. They also do it “for its own sake””, because without science there is no mental progress. Scientific progress is an integral part, and the most important one, of the process of intellectualization of society. True, increasing intellectualization and rationalization does not mean an increase in knowledge about the living conditions in which a person has to exist. “It means something different: people know or believe what they just want, and all this can be found out at any time; that, therefore, in principle there are no mysterious, incalculable forces that operate here, that, on the contrary, all things can, in principle, be mastered by calculation. The latter, in turn, means that the world is disenchanted."

M. Weber believes that in modern science an individual researcher can create something significant, completed only under the condition of the strictest specialization. " Completed and efficient work,” he asserts, “there is always a special job these days.”. Everyone who associates themselves with science should understand this. However, it is appropriate to note that M. Weber himself was encyclopedist scientist. The range of his interests was not limited to the strictest specialization. And when he was once asked why he dared to undertake such comprehensive research, he replied: “ I want to know how much I can cover».

M. Weber is trying to construct an ideal type of scientist. From his point of view, a scientist is a person who should not strive to dominate people. The main meaning of his life lies in the search for truth. It is in her that he finds satisfaction and dignity. A scientist is an intellectual, a man of honor, first of all, intellectual honor. This independent and unencumbered except science itself, man. He should not be sad or wait, but he must act. Scientist not a prophet, but a worker, a doer capable of an exhaustive explanation. Moreover, we must act in accordance with the requirements of the time. It is important to meet the “demands of the day.” To the scientist there must be passion, enthusiasm, inquisitiveness, conviction, and finally inspiration. A scientist must need an idea, you won’t achieve anything by just installing cold calculations. An idea is prepared only on the basis of everyday hard work. A scientist must be well educated, armed with methodology, know your business well. Max Weber believes that scientific methodology is a creative process of research and explanation of objects using logical procedures, and not a rigid, inflexible system of knowledge about them, in which there are fundamental, unshakable laws. In this regard, his development of the concept of “ideal type” acquires truly revolutionary scientific significance. To understand things and processes, to evaluate them objectively, you need to have something to compare them with, i.e. one should have some standard model, which he calls « ideal type." M. Weber calls the ideal type a utopia, a product of our imagination, a purely mental formation. The ideal type is just a tool for comprehending reality. It is not a goal, but a means of knowledge. This is a theoretical construct, the essence of which is as follows:

1. Ideal type is a mental construct, which does not reflect or replicate true reality, i.e. what happens in life. It only expresses various aspects of social reality and, in the most general sense, constructs it.

2. The ideal type should not be confused with evaluation or value, i.e.. a scientist should not operate with the concepts of “good” or “bad”, “matter” or “not important”.

3. The ideal-typical expresses limited uniformity and similarity of actions. It cannot cover all social reality. For example, the concepts of “Christianity”, “church”, “sect”, “craft”, “capitalism”, “economic man”, “law” are only models or ideal types. In fact, we do not know Christianity, but Catholicism, Protestantism, Orthodoxy (in each country, at different times, i.e. different manifestations of Christianity). Same thing with sects. There are no abstract sects in general, but there are sects of Jehovah's Witnesses, Adventists, etc. Constructed sociological concepts are ideally typical not only when applied to external events, but also to phenomena in the inner life of people. Therefore, it can be studied using abstractions and generalizations.

M. Weber is an irreconcilable opponent of scientific simplification, amateurism, as well as amateurism in politics, economics, art. A “person” in the scientific field is only one who serves only one cause.” That is, he is engaged in thorough, deep, diverse scientific research, devoting his entire life to science. Real scientific gains don't come easy.

From the point of view of a German thinker, science is dynamic developing rapidly. The fate and meaning of science are such that much in it quickly becomes outdated, something can be surpassed. “But to be surpassed scientifically is not only our common destiny, but also our common goal.” That is, a scientist should not be upset or despair if his work becomes outdated in 10–20 years. He believes that this is how it should be, with rare exceptions. After all, the progress of science is endless. Other researchers must go further than us. Anyone who claims to have fully understood the essence of a phenomenon is outside science. The Faustian spirit dominates in scientific creativity, i.e. a spirit of dissatisfaction with the results achieved, there is a constant movement towards the unknown, regardless of any difficulties.

Let us pay special attention to one very subtle, delicate nuance outlined by M. Weber. Nowadays, you can sometimes hear from technical students, including mythists, reproaches against the humanities. Like, why do we need philosophy, sociology, political science, etc. What do they give? They say, mathematics, physics, chemistry - yes! Here is what M. Weber says on this subject, speaking to a student audience: “Natural sciences, for example physics, chemistry, astronomy, take it for granted that the highest laws of cosmic phenomena, constructed by science, are worth knowing. Not only because with the help of such knowledge one can achieve technical success, but also “for its own sake” - if science is a “calling”. This premise itself is unprovable. And in the same way, it is unprovable whether the world described by the natural sciences is worthy of existence, whether it has any “meaning”, and whether there is any point in existing in such a world. There is no question about this."

Of course, one cannot perceive M. Weber’s judgment as an underestimation of the role or sweeping criticism of the natural sciences. The main idea of ​​the German researcher is that the natural sciences and humanities are universally valid. Both contribute to knowledge of the world and the development of human intelligence.

M. Weber was one of the first to notice the rational tendency of European science to focus on technology, its invasion of the outside world, its active development. Thanks to this, he believes, Western civilization was able to achieve the highest results in transforming all spheres of human life and becoming truly rational. M. Weber actually discovers rationality as a key feature of Western mentality and way of life. However, let's not forget that M. Weber never overestimated the role of science as such. He completely lacked maximalism. He believed that people do not live according to science, and that no science, including sociology, can show society how it should be happy, or how it should be structured, and, moreover, accurately predict its future. Forecasting the future, although an important task of science, is impossible in all its features and details even in natural science. An accurate forecast is possible only within the framework of a conceptual system, nothing more.

M. Weber was one of the scientists who objected to science built on ethical principles. Science must be non-ethical, ethically neutral, impartial. The results of science may be such that they affect the interests of a particular people, race, or community. For example, a geneticist may discover through research that differences in intelligence are related to biology. Of course, in this case the research cannot be stopped, although it may cause rejection and discontent in certain circles. The kingdom of moral values ​​is the kingdom of fighting idols, demanding loyalty to contradictory ethical ideas. M. Weber always insisted that people of science must necessarily be guided by the spirit of science, act as scientists, but not necessarily as citizens. It should be noted that from the position of our time, when science has achieved mind-blowing successes, when with the help of its developments it is possible to radically change the world around us and even destroy humanity, M. Weber’s thesis about the unethical nature of science is unacceptable. If we simply speak in his own (Weberian) language, then the thesis quickly becomes outdated. Then it was relevant as a means of combating theology and obscurantism. A modern scientist must necessarily be a citizen. Maybe even first of all a citizen, a responsible person, and then a scientist. Of course, M. Weber is not a scientist, but the urgency of the problems raised and posed by this talented researcher gave a significant impetus to the growing interest in science and its influence on the development of society.

What can a modern scientist, especially a beginner, learn from Max Weber? The short answer is a lot, a lot.

Firstly, you cannot be a serious researcher without fluent knowledge of the methodology of scientific knowledge and the conceptual and categorical apparatus of science. M. Weber constantly focused attention on this and personally not only mastered, but also developed both the methodology of scientific knowledge and its categories.

Secondly, serious science requires that the scientist find his true interest in it, i.e. a problem or group of problems that would become the dominant feature of scientific research for him. In this sense, M. Weber serves as a role model. The problem of rationality, actualized by him, runs like a red thread through all of his scientific work. It exists even where, it would seem, it should not and cannot be at all. It is important for all of us to remember Weber’s attitude that the choice of a subject, a particular scientific problem, is value-dependent, fraught with obvious or hidden goals, interests and biases.

Thirdly, M. Weber was very principled regarding correctly posed questions in scientific research. An incorrectly posed question leads to negative results and causes enormous damage to science. A modern scientist, following M. Weber, must clearly understand what exactly he is studying and for what purposes. Pointlessness, aimlessness, spontaneity, as a rule, do not give significant scientific results, or even lead the researcher into a dead end. At the same time, M. Weber calls for being very careful in judgments, reflections, conclusions and conclusions. There is nothing to say about forecasts. Here you need to be doubly careful.

Fourthly, following M. Weber, it is necessary to actively act, abandon dogmatism, monocausality in the interpretation of phenomena; rely on pluralism and realism. It is important for modern young scientists, especially Russian ones, to learn how to truly “disenchant” the world. After all, for the Russian person the process of “disenchantment” of the world is not completed, and in some cases has not yet begun. The majority, as before, believes and expects that with the wave of a wand, someone (God, the state, politicians, new leaders, a bank, a certain fund or someone else) will solve certain problems for them. But, as we see, they can’t decide. Well, no way, at least die! Therefore, we must actively act ourselves. The role of scientists in this matter should be leading, paramount, or at least noticeable.

Fifthly, M. Weber teaches us by personal example to be strong in spirit, persistent, and self-critical. He called not to engage in narcissism, but to constantly look for answers to the main questions, to clearly determine who is God for a scientist, and for any person, and who is the devil. It is necessary for each of us to solve this problem, no matter how difficult and difficult it may be, but it is still necessary! There is no escape from this.

Sixthly, according to M. Weber, the role of chance cannot be underestimated both in scientific activity and in everyday practice. M. Weber makes it clear to us that the future of both an individual person and humanity as a whole is not predetermined. No one knows it. And even the inexorable obvious rationalization and bureaucratization of society can lead to something unclear. Humanity is doomed to constantly make choices based on certain values; choice, in turn, involves compromise and consensus. Therefore, you need to be prepared for anything. The current state of affairs in the world is convincing confirmation that Max Weber is right on this score. The deep financial crisis that has engulfed the entire world requires politicians, financiers and, of course, scientists to make the right choice, to find methods and ways to solve fundamental problems that are adequate to the current situation.

The scientific ideas of Max Weber can be a good help in this matter. And not only this. M. Weber is an example of a scientist who is a deep expert in historical, economic, philosophical, legal, sociological, political science and cultural material and its sophisticated analysis. The scientific life and activities of the German researcher are worthy of thorough study.
BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. 
   Weber M. Science as a vocation and profession / Selected works. M. Weber. – M.: Progress, 1990.
2. 
   Weber M. Basic sociological concepts / Selected works. M. Weber. – M.: Progress, 1990.
3. 
   Weber M. On some categories of understanding sociology / Selected works. M. Weber. – M.: Progress, 1990.
4. 
   Weber M. Protestant ethics and the spirit of capitalism / Selected works. M. Weber. – M.: Progress, 1990.
5. 
   Weber M. Sociology of religion / Favorites. The image of society. M. Weber. – M.: Lawyer, 1994.

The main ideas of Max Weber (1864-1920), German sociologist, founder of the theory of social action and “understanding” sociology, briefly outlined in this article.

Max Weber main ideas briefly

The sociologist's main views and ideas are set out in his works “Economy and Society” (1922) and “The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism”.

• The central concept in Weber's system is “dominance.” Unlike power, it is based on economic power. This is a special relationship between the managed and the manager, where the latter imposes his will on the former in the form of binding orders.
• The role of violence as the basis of the state. Recognizing this fact, Weber nevertheless emphasized that violence alone is not enough for the emergence and long-term functioning of the dominant system. It is also necessary to have certain traditions, values, beliefs, rules and norms that determine the public obedience of people.
• He identified 3 “ideally pure types of domination”: charismatic, traditional and rational. Traditional dominance is based on the belief in legitimate authority, which is based on tradition and has norms and rules assigned to it. Charismatic dominance is a gift, a divine extraordinary quality that only a few people are endowed with. They have magical powers, according to other people. In modern states, such dominance is the basis of political leadership
• Sociological theory. Sociology is an understanding science that studies the behavior of an individual who puts a certain meaning into his actions. He identified 4 types of social motivation (actions) of a person: value-rational social action (based on belief in the ethical, aesthetic, religious value of behavior regardless of its result), goal-oriented social action (based on the expectation of the behavior of objects of the external world and other people), affective social action (emotional action), traditional social action (habitual human behavior).
• The concept of the influence of Protestant ethics on capitalism. The principles of Protestantism - moderate current consumption, selfless work, fulfilling one's obligations, investing resources in the future and honesty - are close to the ideal type of a capitalist entrepreneur.
• He defended the idea of ​​an ideal type of capitalism, as the triumph of rationality in economic life, religion and political power.
• He identified 4 types of rationalism - formal, substantive, theoretical and practical.
• Each time has its own absolutes and values.

We hope that from this article you learned about the main ideas of Max Weber.

Information for publication kindly provided publishing house Peter

Weber Max (1864-1920) Weber, Max

1. Introduction
2. Biographical information
3. Main contribution
4. Conclusions

Brief biographical information

received a doctorate and began teaching at the University of Berlin;
became professor of economics at the University of Heidelberg;
in 1897 he suffered a severe nervous breakdown and for several years was unable to seriously engage in any work;
in 1904, during a trip to the USA, he gradually began to return to normal life;
in 1904-1905 published his most famous work, “The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism” (The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism);
most of his subsequent works were published over the next fifteen years, and also posthumously;
died on June 14, 1920 while working on his most significant bookEconomy andSociety(“Economy and Society”).

Main works

The Protestant Ethic and Spirit of Capitalism (1904-1905)
Economy and Society (1921)
General Economic History (1927)

Summary

Max Weber was a major social theorist; The scientist’s ideas were directly related to the problems of business and management. In the course of research into world history, M. Weber created a general theory of the rationalization of society. Time turned out to be not too harsh on it: today's society is even more rational than in the years of its creation. M. Weber's theoretical ideas are of particular importance for understanding, among other things, modern formal organizations, the capitalist market, the characteristics of professions and the economy in general. They remain relevant today, and the neo-Weberian theories that emerged from them are even more applicable to the problems of modern society.

1. Introduction

M. Weber is considered the most prominent German theorist after Karl Marx who dealt with the problems of social development. In fact, M. Weber had to both fight Marxism and distance himself from it. Like K. Marx, he knew a lot about capitalism. However, for M. Weber, the problem of capitalism was part of the broader problem of modern rational society. Therefore, while K. Marx focused on alienation within the economic system, M. Weber viewed alienation as a broader process occurring in many other social institutions. K. Marx condemned capitalist exploitation, and M. Weber analyzed the forms of increasing oppression in a rational society. K. Marx was an optimist who believed that the problems of alienation and exploitation could be solved through the destruction of the capitalist economy, and M. Weber looked at the world pessimistically, believing that the future would only bring increased rationalization, especially if capitalism was destroyed. M. Weber was not a revolutionary, but a careful and thoughtful researcher of modern society.

2. Biographical information

Max Weber was born into a middle-class family in which parents had completely different views on life. His father, who valued life's blessings, was a classic example of a bureaucrat who eventually managed to occupy a fairly high position. At the same time, his mother was a sincerely religious person and led an ascetic lifestyle. Later M. Weber's wife Marianne (Weber, 1975) noted that Max's parents from childhood confronted him with difficult choices, which he struggled with for many years and which had a profound impact on his personal life and scientific work (Mitzman, 1969).
M. Weber received his doctorate from the University of Berlin in 1892 in the same field of knowledge (jurisprudence) with which his father was associated, and soon began teaching at this educational institution. However, by that time his interest had already been directed to three other disciplines - economics, history and sociology - to the study of which he devoted the rest of his life. His early work in these areas earned him a position as professor of economics at the University of Heidelberg in 1896.
Soon after his appointment to Heidelberg, M. Weber had a serious quarrel with his father, who died shortly after this conflict. M. Weber himself suffered for some time from a severe nervous disorder, from the consequences of which he was never able to fully recover. However, in 1904-1905. he was already healthy enough to publish one of his most famous works, “The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism” (Weber, 1904-1905; Lehmann and Roth, 1993). The main theme of this book, as its title implied, reflected the influence exerted on M. Weber by the religiosity of his mother (who professed Calvinism, which was the leading movement of Protestantism in the era of the emergence of capitalism) and the love of earthly goods of his father. She also demonstrated the influence of his mother's ideology on his father's philosophy, which was then analyzed by M. Weber in a series of works on sociology and religion (Weber, 1916, 1916-1917, 1921), mainly devoted to the analysis of the influence of the world's main religions on human economic behavior.
In the last fifteen years of his life, M. Weber published most of his most important works. Death prevented him from completing his most significant scientific workEconomy and Society(Weber 1921), which, although unfinished, was published posthumously, as well as the workGeneral Economic History(“General Economic History”) (Weber, 1927).
During his lifetime, M. Weber had a significant influence on such scientists as Georg Simmel, Robert Michels and Georg Lucas. However, the influence of his theories remains strong and perhaps even strengthened today, thanks to the emergence of many neo-Weberian scientific concepts (Collins, 1985).

3. Main contribution

In the field of business and management, M. Weber is best known for his studies of bureaucracy. However, their results provided only a small part of his more general theory of the rationalization of Western society, many elements of which, going beyond the bureaucracy paradigm, are of significant value to scholars of business and management.
In the broadest sense, the question that M. Weber addresses in his works is why Western society evolved to a special form of rationalization and why the rest of the world was not able to create a similar rational system? A distinctive feature of Western rationality is the presence of bureaucracy, but this conclusion reflects only one, albeit a very important aspect (along with capitalism) of the large-scale process of rationalization of society.
The concept of rationalization in Weber's work is notoriously vague, but the best definition of at least one key type, formal rationalization, implies a process in which the actors' choice of means to achieve an end becomes increasingly constrained, if not entirely determined by rules. , regulations and laws of universal application. Bureaucracy, as the most important area of ​​application of these rules, laws and regulations, is one of the main results of this process of rationalization, but along with it there are others, for example, the capitalist market, the system of rational-legal authority, factories and assembly lines. What they have in common is the presence of formal rational structures that force all their constituent individuals to act in a rational manner, striving to achieve goals through the choice of the most direct and effective methods. In addition, M. Weber observed an increase in the number of sectors of society falling under the power of formal rationalization. Ultimately, he foresaw the emergence of a society in which people would be imprisoned in an “iron cage of rationality” made of an almost inextricable network of formally rational structures.

These structures, as well as the process of formal rationalization in general, can be seen as defined along many dimensions (Eisen, 1978). First, formally rational structures emphasize the importance of being able to be measured or otherwise quantified. This emphasis on quantitative assessments tends to reduce the importance of qualitative assessments. Second, importance is placed on efficiency, or finding the best available means of achieving a goal. Third, it emphasizes the importance of predictability, or ensuring that a facility will perform the same in different places and at different times. Fourth, significant attention is paid to the problem of control and, ultimately, the replacement of technologies requiring the participation of people with completely unmanned ones. Finally, fifthly, which is quite typical for Weber’s vague definition of the rationalization process, formally rational systems have a tendency to obtain irrational results or, in other words, to achieve irrational rationality.
Rationality has many irrational characteristics, but the most important of them is dehumanization. From the point of view of M. Weber, modern formally rational systems tend to become structures in which the manifestation of any humanistic principles is impossible, which leads to the emergence of a bureaucrat, a factory worker, an assembly line worker, as well as a participant in the capitalist market. According to M. Weber, there is a basic contradiction between these formally rational structures, devoid of values, and individuals with their concepts of “individuality” (that is, the subjects who define these values ​​and are influenced by them) (Brubaker, 1984: 63).
A modern researcher of business and management problems is faced with many questions arising from the works of M. Weber. At the most general level, Weber's theory of increasing formal rationalization continues to be relevant to the modern business world. The business world, like society as a whole, should apparently become even more rational than it was in the time of M. Weber. Thus, the process of rationalization remains relevant, and we need to be prepared to extend its influence into the world of business and into ever wider areas of society.
In addition to considering the general theory, there are also more specific areas of work by M. Weber, the most important of which for us is associated with the process of bureaucratization and the creation of bureaucratic structures. The process of bureaucratization, as one of the varieties of the more general process of rationalization, continues to develop, and bureaucratic structures retain their vitality and even spread both in the West and in other countries of the world. At the same time, Weber's “ideal type” of bureaucracy retains its significance as a heuristic tool for analyzing organizational structures. The challenge is to understand how well these structures correspond to the elements of an ideal type of bureaucracy. The concept of ideal bureaucracy remains a useful methodological tool even in our era of radically updated de-bureaucratized forms. The ideal type can help determine how far these new bureaucratic forms have departed from the type first described by M. Weber.

Although bureaucracy continues to retain its importance, we may wonder whether it is still a possible paradigm for the process of rationalization? Indeed, it can be argued, for example, that fast food restaurants are today a better paradigm for the rationalization process than bureaucracy (Ritzer, 1996).
Bureaucracy is an organizational form characteristic of one of Weber's three types of power. If rational-legal power is based on the legality of the rules put into effect, then traditional power is based on the sanctity of ancient traditions. Finally, charismatic power is based on followers' beliefs that their leader has unique qualities. Definitions of these types of power can also be used in analyzing the activities of managers of both commercial enterprises and other organizations. Since all three types of power are ideal in nature, any leader can receive the powers they provide on the basis of legitimizing any combination of these types.
As communist regimes around the world emerged in different countries, M. Weber’s ideas about the capitalist market also became actualized. The capitalist market was the primary site for the development of both the rationalization process and the formally rational structure, defined by all the key elements listed above. In addition, he was critical to the spread of the principles of formal rationality to many other areas of society.
M. Weber foresaw the fierce struggle taking place in the modern world between formal rationalism and the second type of rationality, the so-called substantive rationalism. While formal rationalism involves choosing means to achieve goals using established rules, substantive rationalism makes such choices based on consideration of broader human values. An example of substantive rationalism is the Protestant ethic, while the capitalist system, which, as we have seen, turned out to be an “unintended consequence” of this ethic, is an example of formal rationalism. The contradiction between both types of rationalism is reflected in the fact that capitalism has become a system hostile not only to Protestantism, but also to any other religion. In other words, capitalism and, more generally, all formally rational systems reflect the growing “disillusionment of the world.”
In the modern world, one area of ​​this conflict is the struggle between formally rational systems, such as bureaucracies, and independent rational professions, such as medicine or law. The classical professions are threatened both by formally rational bureaucracies, such as those associated with the state or private enterprise, and by the rise of formal rationalization within these professions themselves. As a result, professions as we know them are drawn into strict “battle formations” and begin to lose much of their influence, prestige and distinctive characteristics. In other words, they find themselves subject to a process of deprofessionalization. This trend is most clearly evident in the most influential of all professions - among American doctors (Ritzer and Walczak, 1988).
We examined two types of rationalism studied by M. Weber (formal and substantive), but two others should also be mentioned: practical (everyday rationalism, with the help of which people perceive the realities of the world around them and strive to cope with them in the best possible way) and theoretical (the desire for cognitive control reality through abstract concepts). It should be noted that the United States has achieved outstanding economic success largely due to the creation and improvement of formally rational systems, for example, assembly lines, systems for controlling labor movements and time costs, and new principles of organization - in particular, the system of independent divisions in a corporationGeneral Motors(see SLOAN, A.) and many others. It is also necessary to recognize that the recent difficulties of the United States are also largely related to the use of formally rational systems. At the same time, Japan’s achievements are associated both with the use of American formally rational systems (as well as the development of their own, for example, just-in-time delivery systems) and their addition with substantive rationalism (the importance of the success of collective efforts), theoretical rationalism (strong reliance on scientific and technical research and engineering achievements) and practical rationalism (for example, the creation of quality circles). In other words, Japan has created a “hyperrational” system, which has given it enormous advantages over American industry, which continues to rely heavily on a single form of rationalism (Rirzer and LeMoyne, 1991).

4. Conclusions

M. Weber's main scientific contribution was his creation of a theory of rationalization and definition of four types of rationalism (formal, substantive, theoretical and practical) and substantiation of the thesis that formal rationalism was a typical product of Western civilization and ultimately took a dominant position in it. Rationalization theory has proven useful in analyzing traditional concepts such as bureaucracy, professions, and the capitalist market, as well as newer phenomena such as the emergence of fast food restaurants, deprofessionalization, and the impressive growth of the Japanese economy as the American economy slowed. Thus, M. Weber’s ideas continue to retain their importance for understanding many modern trends in the development of business and the economy as a whole. Theorists continue to study and develop his ideas, and researchers try to apply them to the study of various social problems.