Sign Up Now
Get instant access to over 1 million+ study documents
OR
Already registered? click here to login
By creating your account, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and student honor code.
Domination According to Weber and Marx
Three types of domination or authority are distinguished by Weber. Below is a discussion of each, together with how they fit together with some of the theories by Marx.
Traditional
Traditional authority depends upon the perceived "sanctity" of established traditions of authority. Also, those exercising the authority are seen as legitimate, and thus unquestioned. Thus both the institution of traditional authority and the persons working under this tradition are respected without question, based upon the collective social perception that such systems are correct as a result of their previous establishment.
Thus the administrative structure associated with this kind of domination is particularistic and diffuse. Patriarchalism and feudalism are characteristics of such a structure, not giving much room for negotiation to those being dominated.
Rational-Legal
Rational-legal authority is based upon the perception of "legality." A set of rules are established for the exercise of such authority. These rules are respected as a result of their establishment under a law that is respected. Those exercising authority under these rules are then also perceived as having the right to do so, as such a right is granted by the respected law.
Structures...
Thus those under this authority have the option of negotiation. This is closer to the structures that are found in contemporary society. The work place has become more democratic.
Charismatic
Charismatic authority depends solely upon the person exercising authority, rather than upon an established system of rules or ideals. The perceived charisma of the person commands respect for any rules or order ordained. Such charisma might entail an exemplary character or exceptional heroism.
The structures associated with this kind of authority are the most open-ended in terms of ruler-subordinate relationships. Negotiations are based only upon the personal relationship between rulers and subordinates.
Through the above systems of authority Weber thus shows how authority has changed over time. In our world the most often-occurring structure of authority is the latter two, where subordinates are granted the right to voice concerns and raise issues without fear of reprimand.
Marx bases his observations upon value. Previously, value has been attached to labor, as labor was a unique skill offered by the laborer. Thus authority was exercised…
Cultural Power Karl Marx, Max Weber, Antonio Gramsci and Pierre Bourdieu all conceptualize culture power in different ways. Each identifies the agent (the specific social group) which acquires and makes use of cultural power as well as the means by which the agents acquire and maintain cultural power. As Marx and Engels observe in The German Ideology, "The class which has the means of material production at its disposal, has control at
Sociology Q’s 1. How is action different from mere behavior, according to Weber? Give examples. For Weber, action and behavior are different in the sense that behavior is a purely mechanistic or mechanical movement of the body. It does not take into consideration an “other”. Action on the other hand is more deliberate in that it takes into consideration the behaviors of others and anticipates their responses or is predicated upon their
Spirit Capitalism Max Weber's philosophy in regards to Protestantism, precisely Calvinism, had a lot to do in the progress of a spirit of capitalism in the western part of Europe has had a deep consequence on the rational of sociologists and historians ever since its publication in 1904. Numerous historians value its use of social theory to past proceedings and admire it for its effort to clarify why capitalism flourished in
It turns his species-life into a means for his individual life. Firstly, it estranges species-life and individual life, and, secondly, it turns the latter, in its abstract form, into the purpose of the former, also in its abstract and estranged form."(Marx, 116) the individual life becomes thus the purpose of the species life of man, as Marx contends. Capitalism appears as an abstract, alienating force that deprives the individual
In other words, he changes, and for Marx, the capitalist cannot change until forced to do so, specifically by the revolution he and Engels call for in the Communist Manifesto. Marx sees the economic development of history as a matter of class struggle, following the dialectic of Hegel as opposing forces fight and through that revolution produce a synthesis, or a new social order. Dickens sees change as possible
(Postone, 1993) Habermas, a contemporary social historian contributor, was also very influenced by Weberian thinking in regarding rhetoric as an action rather than creating truth. As Weber or Habermas, or Marx or any other philosopher of history, among others, puts it, social history is a complex science and can have many facets. As Soon Won Park presents, connected with the colonial history of Korea, "history is now understood not simply