CLASS, STATUS AND PARTY
Weber’s theory of social class , status group and power is central to his writhing and are related to economic , social and political aspects respectively. It was written between 1911and 1920 and appears in the second volume of Economy and society .In this context ,Abraham stated “ In the formation of relationship ,says Weber ,men tend to be attracted to and enter into social relationship with other who share common positions .and interests in the area of economic politics and culture “ In fact class , status and power are considered to be three dimensions of social stratification of weber . Firstly , Weber put forward his theory of social class on the basis of three distinct categories :
(i) Class in relation to market situation .
(ii) Class in relation to different types of social action flowing form class interests : and
(iii) The formation of social classes in relation to historical
types of class struggle “
Weber defined the concept of class in reliance to the market .he stated “a class is a numbers of people having in common a specific causal component of life chances . This component is represented by economic interests in the possession of goods and opportunities for income under conditions of the market “ From this definition two things appeared : life chencecs and market By . Class Weber is referring to the economic order of society where “ market relationships “ were of the utmost importance. It is clear that this concept of Weber ‘s class is very close to the ‘objective ‘ part of Marx ‘s concept of class .Weber S definition of class also refers to “ class situation that is determined by life chances Which may arise When individuals sell skill and services on the market “ 80 In fact class situation , on the other hand ,is also determined by the ownership of usable property which creates returns on investment and incomes in the form of rent . ,These two class situations ,viz,.. property and the opportunities arising form incomes , define the class situation of modern society .
Weber ‘s Concept of Status
The second dimension of power , according to weber is the development of the “status group “in modern society .the concept of status group has major role in his theory of class and stratification .by status ‘weber talks about talks about the way the organisation of society produces different amounts of prestige or social honour for different groups of individual .status situation is basic concepts to understand status in the sphere of social activity . Weber defined a status situation as “ every component of life fate that is determined by a positive or negative social estimation of honour “82 Therefore status situation is determined by a specific positive or negitive social honour . members of status groups are held together by notions of proper life styles or consumption patterns and the social esteerm or honour honour accorded to them by others . In addition , weber also made a distinctions between class situation and status situation .weber explained class situation ,the economic order and the sphere of the market and in this sense is functionally separate form class class is restricted to the Speyer of the market and characterised by acquisitions whereas status is outside the market and characterised by consumption .in fact both class and status are considered as separate dimension of the stratification system .In this sense , the highest preying (status )in a particular sociol group dose not always belong to the richest (class) .
Weber outlined four distinct characteristics of status groups groups and their function within society .status groups . He stated .
(i) Evaluated social worth and bestow honour :
(ii) Segregate themselves form other status group
(iii) Uphold patterns of consumption and canons of taste : and
(iv) Monopolise status privileges.
For the first characteristics of status group , weber designated to status situation as determined by a “positive or negitive evaluation of honour second characteristic of social groups is
Segregation .weber thought that the status group sets itself apart form other groups in terms of life style and badges . Indian caste system is group is the privileges associated with it weber stated that status “.British royal family would be an example of this category
Another fact related to it is that status groups form communites with common interest and purposes .”These are based on shared condition and a common perspective that derives from similar experience of life style and habits of taste “ It can be said that status groups are usually considered as communities.
Concept of parties
Parties are the third dimension of power and stratification system. Parties may be formed on the bas of classes or status groups or some sort for mixture of both .the notion of parties are found only in complex societies in fact political order the action of parties is oriented toward two kids of activities :first the acquisition of power and second the influencing of the action of other for political purposes .”90 The key purpose according to weber of political parties is to secure power and maintain separation from the economic and social sphere .in brief parties are the groupings of people oriented toward the acquisition of social power
Weber tride to understand the complexes of social stratification from class to bureaucratic organisation in modern society . Weber thought that it was a type of movement from class to authority to bureaucracy in order to understand the nature and function of power in modern society . Finally Weber proposed legitimate authority thought the bureaucratic cooperation of activities on the basis of rational principles to regulate modern society .
CONCLUSION
German born sociologist and philosopher Max Weber used to introduce himself as a political economist. He opposed with Marx on the idea of historical materialism and defining social system in a new way by combining the factors of economy and religion. In this new way of viewing society, Weber identifies the processes of rationalization, secularization and disenchantment. These three processes are associated with the rise of capitalism and modernity. This is a great shift of focus to analyze capitalism
Max Weber is recognised as one of the greatest sociologists of the modern era. Compared with Marx and Durkhiem, Weber’s approach seems to be individualistic in nature. Analysis of the different structure of modern society is his central thrust of study.
His major contributions to sociology are methodological approach, capitalism, sociology of religion, social stratification and rationality. However, Weber himself was opposed to creation of professorship in sociology. he tries to find out the solution of any problem from the contextual viewpoint. Weber’s methodological approach lo sociology was directly related to Methodenstrait or the German debate about the use of proper method in the social sciences. Verstehen, interpretive understanding, subjective meaning and ideal type construction are central to Weber’s methodological orientation. From entire analysis, I find that Weber mainly focuses on the way in which social reality can be understood and explained. In this sense, he tries to see social situation or problem or phenomena on the basis of contextual reality. And hence causal functional relation can be traced out on the basis of concentrating on particular situation. At the same time, he evaluates any social phenomena from the actor’s point of view. Weber applied his methodological approach in the analysis of social action, religion and capitalism, bureaucracy, class, status and party and so on. Here, he tried to study meaningful human actions in relation to society through a proper perspective.
In the analysis of social change, he did not accept a single factor is responsible for it. Here Max Weber was certainly influenced by Marx’s analysis of economic interpretation of society. As Parsons puts it, “Undoubtedly, the main starting point of Weber’s descriptive treatment was Marx. Marx’s writings and the discussions of capitalism and socialism revolving about them were making a profound impression in Germany in Weber’s formative period but typically enough it was the ‘Historical Marx and not the Manx, who was most closely related to the classical economic theory “.
Although Max Weber tried to present sociology a scientific look but he has also been subjected to a good deal of criticism. He has been charged of being weak towards Functionalism. In this in text, Weber has been criticized of giving more emphasis on individualistic and subjective understanding of social phenomenon. analysis of relationship between religion and capitalism has been attacked. In this respect, Sorokin has quoted examples of where no progress worth the name was made in the field of but it had miraculous progress in the economic, political.
AUTHORITY AND TYPES
According to Weber authority is related to power. indeed legitimate power is authority and authority is nothing but legitimate power. Therefore, the various forms of legitimate power will be the various forms of authority. According to Weber, authority determines the social action and the social organization. Weber recognizes three kinds of authority. These are:
- a) Traditional Authority
Traditional authority rests on the belief in he sacredness of the social order and its prerogatives based on tradition The purest type of this authority is represented by patriarchal authority. Within it. the various strata of individuals are bound by communal relationships The man in command is ruling over obedicnt-rcgarded as the lord who exercises this control and power over obedient ‘subjects’ These people obey the lord personally sincc his dignity is hallowed by tradition. His commands are also bound by tradition. But, then the lord’s inconsiderate violation of tradition endangers the legitimacy of his personal rule, which rests merely upon the sacredness of tradition The lord’s administrative staff consists of personally dependent mcn, who are mostly members of the household, domestic workers personal fricnds or associates and lackeys bound by personal allegiance.
Weber mentions that tradition, privilege, feudal or patrimonial bonds of allegiance, status, honour and ‘goodwill’ regulate the web of inter-relations within the structure of traditional authority. And, patriarchal ruler of the family father and chief etc., represents but the purest type of traditionalist rule. The co-existence of the strictly tradition-bound and the free sphere of conduct is a common feature of all traditionalistic forms of authority.
Weber writes that in comparison to traditional patriarchalism, all estate rules, based upon more or less stable appropriation of administrative power, stands closer to legal authority as the guarantees surrounding the prerogatives of the privileged assume the form of special “rights”, which is a result of the “division of power” among the estates. This rationale is absent in patriarchal structures.
(b) Charismatic Authority:
Charismatic authority rests on the effectual and personal devotion of the follower to the lord and his gifts of grace, known as charisma It comprises especially magical abilities, revelations of heroism, power of the mind, and of speech. The eternally new, the non-routing, the unheard of and the motional rapture from it are sources of personal devotion. The purest types are the rule of the prophet, the warrior hero, and the great demagogue. The person in command is typically the “leader” who is obeyed by the “disciple”. Obedience is given exclusively to the leader as a person. for the sake of his extraordinary qualities, and not because of enacted position or traditional dignity. Therefore, “obedience is forthcoming only so long as people ascribe these qualities to him that is, so long as his charisma is proven by evidence.” The administrative staff of charismatic authority is selected according to charisma and personal devotion, selection docs not consider special qualification as in the case of the civil servant nor domestic or other forms of personnel dependency.
Throughout the ages, charismatic authority exercised by certain saints, prophets, warriors, hero, philosophers, orators, scientists, politicians and rulers have held sway over men. The demagogues have also exercised sufficient influence on the masses by virtue of their charismatic powers. It is scan that charismatic authority rests on the faith’ in the charismatic person and the belief in his extraordinary powers and qualities. Yet, as Weber points out “charismatic authority does not derive from this recognition by the subjects rather the reverse is true, which means that the charismatically legitimized leader considers faith in the acknowledgement of his charisma obligatory and punishes their violation. Thus, “Charismatic authority is even one of the great revolutionary forces in history, but in pure form it is thoroughly Authoritarian and lordly in nature.”
Weber uses the term ‘charisma’ in a completely value-neutral sense. He explains that the charismatic person has to prove that he has been sent “by the grace of god by performing miracles and being successful in scoring the good living for his followers or subjects, as was done by Moses of the biblical fame, the great law-giver of the Jews.
Charismatic rule represents a specifically extra-ordinary and purely personal relationship. Weber writes that, however, in the case of continued existence, when the personal representative of charisma is eliminated, the charisma structure has the tendency to reutilize. This is known as the “reutilization of charisma”. The process through which it happens are as follows:
(1) Traditionalization of the orders. The authority of precedents takes the place of the charismatic leader’s or his staff’s charismatic creativity in law and administration. These precedents cither protect the successor or are attributed to them.
(2)The charismatic staff of disciples or followers changes into a legal or estate-like staff by taking over internal prerogatives or those appropriated by privilege
(3) The meaning of charisma itself may undergo a change. Decisive in this is the way in which the problem of successor ship is solved which is a burning question for ideological and necked omen material interests Often an active search is made for a successor, if strong incrusts are vested in the community of the charismatic structure of authority The process of the search for the so slow Dalai Lamas in Tibet is an example of it.
(c) Rational Legal Authority
Rational legal authority rests on eye enactment sanctions its pure type is best represented by bureaucracy. The basic idea is that laws can be enacted and changed at pleasure by formal procedure. Te governing body which enacts such laws or rules is either cllected or appointed and constitute what are known as rational organizations Obedience in such organizations is not owed to anybody personally but to enacted rule and regulations These enactments specify to whom and to what rule people owe obedience. The person in authority, too obey a role when aiding an order. These rules ads regulations represent abstract norms The person in command is held to be superior legally His right to govern is legitimized by enactment enforced by the State.
Weber points out that “The typical official is a trained specialist whose terms of employments are contractual. He is given a fixed salary scaled by “rank of office” not by amount of work done by him. He has the right to a pension according to fixed rules of advancement. His admnistration represents vocational work by virtue of “impersonal duties of office” Ideally the administrator is supposed to cxercise his authority “without regard to person” by following rational rules with strict formality. He is expected to enforce organizational discipline in the burcaucratic system through Iegal rules Weber stresses that this type of legal’ rule “comprises not only the modern structure of static and city government but likewise the power relation in private capitalist enterprise, in public corporations and voluntary associations of all sorts, provided that an extensive and hirarchicaly organi/ed stall of functionaries exists,” Further. bureaucracy represents the purest type of Icgal authority However, no stnicture of authority is exclusively bureauratic, that is, it is only managed by contractually hired and appointed officials But. if should be noted that bureaucracy does not represent the only type of Iegal auihority Rather, parliamentary administration and all kinds of admimistrative bodies are included within bureaucracy when their functioning rests on enacted rules and organizational discipline.
It should be noted here that the crucial differcnce between charismatic authority and both of the other two types of authority is that the former is het unstable. This is because, the source and carrier of charismatic yare same, and therefore, it continues so long as it succeeds once. Cure of such authority Incans the loss of its legitimacy. A way out of this nation, says Weber, is the “reutilization of charisma” by which he means the transformation of charismatic authority, as far as possible, into the other two types of authority by the process of reutilization to maintain its continuity.