Max Weber Theory on Bureaucracy Essay Example

its interpretation were contrasting Comte’s theory. Comte was a positivist. Positivists embrace observation as well as measurements. They subscribe to the idea that sociology ought to struggle to emulate methods of research in hard disciplines such as chemistry and biology. The positivistic program was brought up by Comte who evaluated group-level social facts such so as to predict the common nature of human behavior. Comte’s work contrasted with Weber because Comte had minor interest in the individual event interpretation, being more concerned about social forces which, unfortunately, were external to any person. Weber, therefore, commenced his research where Comte stopped. Weber contrasted methods applied by the physical as well as natural sciences.

He thought that these methods could not explain human action since they overlooked human capacity to connect meaning to work and behave according to comprehensible motives. Therefore, he rejected positivism with passion. According to Weber, data required interpretation. His research and work were based on Verstehen, illustrative understanding. Weber supposed that social pattern as well as structures were discoveries made by people and imposed on them so as to create meaning and order. To land in a thorough understanding regarding social dynamics, it was vital to commence with the personal meaning attached to the action. Weber was always persistent to his interpretive work. He rejected functionalist evaluation that treated institutions with the capacity to act. How Karl Marx and Max Weber Differed In Their Theoretical Assumptions.

In respect to structural differences, Mark supposed that the capitalist states resultant wealth came from productive forces whereas Weber firmly believed that they came from Protestantism religion. Marx emphasized on structural features as being the primary dynamic of societal

life as well as social change. Weber placed emphasis on the activities of individuals and position held by culture as well as social change. Regarding power, Marx stressed on political, economic organization as the most dominant structure in the society. He argued that it influenced the other social structures, education, family, religion as well as culture. Weber’s argument partially agrees with Marx on the significance economic structure of capitalism which he refers to us class power. However, when it comes to social status and political power, he argues that they are distinct from economic power. Weber goes ahead to emphasize that it is the power of bureaucracy as well as its similar culture of rationalism which is the central power of modernism.

On issues of estrangement from society, both agree that there exist benefits to current life. They emphasize more on the problems facing the contemporary society. According to Marx, Capitalism generates alienation from real humanity for capitalists and labor class as well as major classes. Weber stress that rationalism in the form of current bureaucratic organizations, which detains people in what Weber refers to as the iron cage so that they become sensualists in the spiritual absence. Unlike Marx, Weber is not interested in pursuing determinism. His objectives were to comprehend the spirit of capitalism regarding historical context. The divisiveness between Marx’s and Weber’s theoretical work is not a scenario of contemporary of valuation. Marx and Weber pursued diachronic evaluation, trying to comprehend the association between modern capitalism and particular historical situations.

References

1. Nielsen, D. A. (2016). The Protestant Ethic and the “Spirit” of Capitalism as Grand Narrative. The Protestant Ethic Turns 100: Essays on the
   

Centenary of the Weber Thesis, 53.