Chapter1: Introduction: Sociological Theory

CRITICISMS

There have been numerous criticisms of Weber. We will deal with four of the most important. The first criticism has to do with Weber's verstehen method. Weber was caught between two problem in regards to verstehen On the one hand, it could not simply mean all a subjective intuition because this would not be scientific. On the other hand, the sociologist could not just proclaim the "objective" meaning of the social phenomenon. Weber declared that his method fell between these two choices, but he never fully explained how (Herva, 1988). The deficiencies in his methodology are not always clear when we are reading Weber's insightful analysis based on his own interpretations, but it becomes perfectly clear when we try to apply his method to our own research or, even more so, when we attempt to teach verstehen to others. Clearly, the method involves systemic and rigorous research, but the magic of turning that research into Weber's illuminating in sights eludes us. This has led some (Abel, 1948) to relegate verstehen to a heuristic operation of discovery that precedes the real scientific work of sociology. Others have suggested that versteben needs to be seen as itself a social process and that our understanding of others always proceeds out of a dialogue (Shields, 1996).

The second criticism is that Weber lacks a fully theorized macrosociology. We have already spent some time discussing the contradiction between Weber's individualistic method and his focus on large-scale social structures and world-historical norms. In Weber's method, class is reduced to a collection of people in the same economic situation. Political structure is reduced to the acceptance of domination because of subjectively perceived legitimacy in terms of rationality, charisma, or traditions. Weber certainly recognizes that class and political structures gave effects on people not to mention such macrophenomena as religion and rationalization--but he has no way to theorize these effects except as a collection of unintended consequences. He has no theory of how these work as systems behind the back of individuals and, in some cases, even to determine the intention of actors (Turner, 1981).

The third criticism of Weber is that he lacks a critical theory. In other words, others have said that Weber's theory cannot be used to point out opportunities for constructive change. We can demonstrate this criticism through examining Weber's theory of rationalization.

Weber used the term rationalization in a number of ways, but of these, Weber was primarily concerned with two types. One concerns the development of bureaucracy and its legal form of authority (see pp. 214-215). The other refers to the subjective changes in attitude that he called formal rationality (see pp. 221-223). In the confluence of bureaucracy and formal rationality we see what Weber described as unintended consequences. The creation of bureaucracy and the adaptation of formal rationality ends up undermining the very purposes that the rationalization was meant to serve. This is what we have called the irrational consequences of rationality. Weber's famous iron cage is one of these irrational consequences. Bureaucracy and formal rationality were initially developed because of their efficiency, predictability, calculability, and control in achieving a given goal (for example, to help the poor). But as rationalization proceeds, the original goal tends to be forgotten and the organization increasingly devotes itself to efficiency, predictability, calculability, and control for their own sakes. For example, welfare bureaucracies measure their success by their efficiency in "dealing" with clients, even their efficiency in getting them off welfare, regardless of whether doing so actually serves the original goal of helping the poor to better their situations.

In some of his most quoted passages, Weber implies that this process is inevitable, as for example in his metaphor of the iron cage. However, as argued above, it would be wrong to see this as a general evolutionary sequence of inevitable rationalization. Johannes Weiss (1987) maintains that rationalization is only inevitable to the extent that we want it to be so. It is simply that our world is so complex that it is difficult to conceive of accomplishing any significant task without the efficiency, calculability, pre-dictability, and control of rationalization----even if it inevitably ends in its own peculiar irrationality. We may dream of a world without bureaucracies, but, "the real question is whether with due regard to the obligations of intellectual honesty -we seriously strive to attain it or ever could" (Weiss, 1987:162).

Many people prefer to ignore their own complicity and to see rationalization as something that is imposed on them. Indeed, one of the most cited criticisms of Weber is that he did not provide a strategy for opposing this rationalization (Marcuse, 1971). Since both of the authors work in bureaucracies (universities), deal with them everyday, and will complain when they are not efficient or predictable enough, we are not in a position to make such a strong criticism of Weber. Nevertheless, part of the reason for our complicity is the lack of fully developed alternatives to an increasingly bureaucratized world. Consequently, it is quite fair to criticize Weber for not offering such an alternative, and it is right for those who follow Weber to work a| providing a theory of an alternative.

The final criticism is of the unremitting pessimism of Weber's sociology. We can see from Weber's sociological method that be firmly believed hi the centrality of individual meaning; however, his substantive work on rationalization and domination indicated that we are trapped in an increasingly meaningless and disenchanted world. It could be said that anyone who still fells optimistic about our culture after reading the closing pages of The Protestant Ethic simply hasn't understood them. This alone is not a criticism of Weber. It is shortsighted to criticize someone who points out your cage, if in fact you are in one. Nevertheless, not only did Weber not attempt to provide us with alternatives, he seems to have missed the fact that some of the unintended consequences may he beneficial