Max Weber theory in social stratification

Max Weber was strongly influenced by Marx’s ideas, but rejected the possibility of effective communism, arguing that it would require an even greater level of detrimental social control and bureaucratization than capitalist society. dialektika[8]teori-komponen tiga stratifikasikesempatan hidup Moreover, Weber criticized the dialectical presumption of proletariat revolt, believing it to be unlikely. Instead, he developed the three-component theory of stratification and the concept of life chances . fungsionalisMarxis
Weber supposed there were more class divisions than Marx suggested, taking different concepts from both functionalist and Marxist theories to create his own system. aksi sosial He emphasized the difference between class, status, and party, and treated these as separate but related sources of power, each with different effects on social action . kelas ataspekerja kerah putihborjuis mungilkelas pekerja Working around half a century later than Marx, Weber claimed there to be in fact four main classes: the upper class , the white collar workers , the petite bourgeoisie , and the manual working class . Barat Weber’s theory more-closely resembles modern Western class structures, although economic status does not seem to depend strictly on earnings in the way Weber envisioned.
Weber derived many of his key concepts on social stratification by examining the social structure of Germany . modal He noted that contrary to Marx’s theories, stratification was based on more than simply ownership of capital . Weber examined how many members of the aristocracy lacked economic wealth yet had strong political power. Yahudi Many wealthy families lacked prestige and power, for example, because they were Jewish . Weber introduced three independent factors that form his theory of stratification hierarchy; class, status, and power:
• Class : A person’s economic position in a society. Weber differs from Marx in that he does not see this as the supreme factor in stratification. proletariat Weber noted how managers of corporations or industries control firms they do not own; Marx would have placed such a person in the proletariat .
• Status : A person’s prestige, social honor, or popularity in a society. Weber noted that political power was not rooted in capital value solely, but also in one’s individual status. Poets or saints, for example, can possess immense influence on society with often little economic worth.
• Power : A person’s ability to get their way despite the resistance of others. Biro Investigasi FederalKongres Amerika Serikat[9] For example, individuals in state jobs, such as an employee of the Federal Bureau of Investigation , or a member of the United States Congress , may hold little property or status but they still hold immense power.
Max Weber, including one between sociologists who do not agree with the use of purely economic dimensions to determine the social stratification. Sociology Giddens in his book shows similarities between Marx and Weber:
“Like Marx, weber regarded society as characterized by conflict over power and resources”

Simultaneously the Difference
“Although Weber accepted Marx’s view that class is founded on objectively given economic factors as important in class formation than were recognized by Marx”

Both Marx and Weber both see that class is the stratification of society based on the economic dimension. But as we have said previously that Weber includes social scientists who reject the use of dimensions of economic stratification solely in menentukan social stratification of society.
According to Weber, social stratification is not as simple as to be explained by the class, he adds in his description of power in society that the differentiation of society can be viewed via the status groups, parties and classes.
Class according to Weber is the number of people who have similarities in terms of opportunities for life or fate (life chances). Opportunities to live person is determined by economic interests in the form of control over goods and the opportunity to earn income in the labor market or commodity market. As a result of haved master equation for goods and services in order to obtain a certain income, MKA people who are in the same class have in common is called a class situation.
Classroom situation is an equation in terms of opportunities for inventory control, personal life experience, or way of life. Categories basis for distinguishing the class is their wealth, and class are factors that create economic interests, at this point Marx and Weber’s class concept is the same, namely the class distinctions and factors that encourage the creation of the class.
Another dimension is the dimension used weber is honor. Human grouped in group status. Group status is a person who is in equal status situations, where people are chances of survival are determined by the size of honor, look at differentiation and courtiers sultan in Yogyakarta. The equation of honor expressed performance status equation lifestyle. In the area of this association can be a restriction in the association with a person whose status is lower. In addition to barring him in the association, according to Weber’s status groups characterized by the presence of the privileges and monopolies on goods and material and an ideal opportunity. In terms of lifestyle, this we can see from the style of consumption.
Besides the economic dimension of distinction and honor through Weber want’s that communities are also differentiated on the basis of its power. Power according to Weber is an opportunity for someone or some people to realize their own desires through a communal action even though experiencing opposition from people who participated in the communal action. Form of communal action is oriented towards the party which gained power.

Max Weber’s Methodology
Max Weber argued against abstract theory, and he favored an approach to sociological inquiry that generated its theory from rich, systematic, empirical, historical research. This approach required, first of all, an examination of the relationships between, and the respective roles of, history and sociology in inquiry. Weber argued that sociology was to develop concepts for the analysis of concrete phenomena, which would allow sociologists to then make generalizations about historical phenomena. History, on the other hand, would use a lexicon of sociological concepts in order to perform causal analysis of particular historical events, structures, and processes. In scholarly practice, according to Weber, sociology and history are interdependent.
Weber contended that understanding, or verstehen , was the proper way of studying social phenomena. Derived from the interpretive practice known as hermeneutics, the method of verstehen strives to understand the meanings that human beings attribute to their experiences, interactions, and actions. Weber construed v erstehen as a methodical, systematic, and rigorous form of inquiry that could be employed in both macro- and micro-sociological analysis.
Weber’s formulation of causality stresses the great variety of factors that may precipitate the emergence of complex phenomena such as modern capitalism. Moreover, Weber argued that social scientists, unlike natural scientists, must take into account the meanings that actors attribute to their interactions when considering causality. Weber, furthermore, sought a middle ground between nomothetic (general laws) and idiographic (idiosyncratic actions and events) views in his notion of a probabilistic adequate causality.
Weber’s greatest contribution to the conceptual arsenal of sociology is known as the ideal type. The ideal type is basically a theoretical model constructed by means of a detailed empirical study of a phenomenon. An ideal type is an intellectual construct that a sociologist may use to study historical realities by means of their similarities to, and divergences from, the model. Note that ideal types are not utopias or images of what the world ought to look like.
Weber urged sociologists to reflect on the role of values in both research and the classroom. When teaching, he argued, sociologists ought to teach students the facts, rather than indoctrinating them to a particular political or personal point of view. Weber did argue, however, that the values of one’s society often help to decide what a scholar will study. He contended that, while values play this very important role in the research process, they must be kept out of the collection and interpretation of data.

Max Weber’s Substantive Sociology
Max Weber’s sociology is fundamentally a science that employs both interpretive understanding and causal explanations of social action and interaction. His typology of the four types of social action is central to comprehending his sociology. According to Weber, social action may be classified as means-ends rational action, value-rational action, affectual action, or traditional action. Any student of Weber must keep in mind that these are ideal types.
Weber developed a multidimensional theory of stratification that incorporated class, status, and party. Class is determined by one’s economic or market situation (ie, life chances), and it is not a community but rather a possible basis for communal action. Status is a matter of honor, prestige, and one’s style of life. Parties, according to Weber, are organized structures that exist for the purposes of gaining domination in some sphere of social life. Class, status, and party may be related in many ways in a given empirical case, which provides the sociologist with a very sophisticated set of conceptual tools for the analysis of stratification and power.
Weber also made a profound contribution to the study of obedience with his ideal types of legitimate domination or authority. Rational-legal authority rests on rules and law. Traditional authority rests on belief in established practices and traditions – ie, authority is legitimate because it is exercised the way it has always been exercised. Charismatic authority rests on belief in the extraordinary powers or qualities of a leader. All of these forms of authority must take into account the point of view of those obeying commands.
Moreover, each form of authority is associated with a variety of structural forms of organization and administration. Legal authority, for example, is often associated with bureaucracy, while traditional authority is associated with gerontocracy, patriarchalism, patrimonialism, and feudalism. Charismatic authority may be associated with a charismatic form of organization. The dilemma of charismatic authority, however, consists of the difficulty of maintaining charisma when the charismatic leader dies. In other words, charismatic organizations tend to routinize charisma, which invariably gives rise to either traditional or rational-legal authority.
Weber also argued that rationalization is a long-term historical process that has transformed the modern world. His typology of forms of rationality is central to this argument. He argued that there are four types of rationality: practical, theoretical, formal, and substantive. He was most concerned with processes of formal and substantive rationalization, especially as propelled by capitalism and bureaucracy. Weber argued that rationalization has occurred in many spheres, including the economy, law, religion, politics, the city, and art.
Weber’s arguments regarding rationalization are exemplified in his studies of religion and capitalism. These sophisticated and voluminous studies inquire into the ways in which religious ideas, the spirit of capitalism, and capitalism as an economic system, are interrelated. In short, according to Weber, Calvinism as a rational, methodical system of religious beliefs and practices was an important factor in the emergence of modern capitalism in the Western world. The economic ethics of other religions, such as Hinduism and Confucianism, inhibited the emergence of modern capitalism in India and China. Once modern capitalism emerged in the Western world, however, it spread the effects of rationalization worldwide.
While Weber’s work has had a profound impact on sociology – as well as other disciplines – it is not without its critics. Some critics question the consistency and applicability of Weber’s method of verstehen . Others are puzzled by Weber’s methodological individualism as it is applied to macro-sociology. Some critics have rebuked Weber for failing to offer any alternatives to rationalization, capitalism, and bureaucracy. Finally, many critics decry Weber’s unflagging pessimism about the future of rationalization and bureaucracy.

About splash99

Aku hanya ingin menjadi aku, dan aku adalah duniaku..
This entry was posted in sociology. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Max Weber theory in social stratification

  1. funbi ajayi says:

    this is wonderful

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s