Basic Sociological Terms [1914]

Sociology, to Weber is the mere understanding of what people do and why.  When starting out reading this chapter, it was difficult for me to understand. I can only give you what I got out of this individually. Weber believes that understanding why one might choose to perform a certain action,can be looked at either on an emotional or a rational level. He also states that choices we make are not solely based on what we believe, but what the people around us believe, and how our choices will affect them also.

Sociology, to Weber is the mere understanding of what people do and why.  When starting out reading this chapter, it was difficult for me to understand. I can only give you what I got out of this individually. Weber believes that understanding why one might choose to perform a certain action,can be looked at either on an emotional or a rational level. He also states that choices we make are not solely based on what we believe, but what the people around us believe, and how our choices will affect them also.

People constantly wonder, why it is we do the things we do? What drives us to act in such ways that seem right to us in a certain state of mind, but goes against what others see fit? Many times people think that we are emotionally driven individuals. Weber agrees to this to a certain extent, but also believes that, as individuals, we can base our actions on a rational level as well. That we do not always act on what we feel inside, but what we can logical see fit to do in certain situations. The question that arises is, whether one choose to do something because they know its right, or do they choose to do it because they feel it is right? He brings on the valid point of trying to understand the meaning behind it all. Why do we act as we do? What is behind it all? 

He goes on to talk about irrationalism. This could help us to understand why we choose to go certain routes. He talks about how certain actions can be brought upon by a stressful situation. When looking at choices we make, we have to look at the question, would a person make the same decision and perform the same action if it was a similar situation but a less stressful one? An example that he uses in the reading is the stock exchange. Behavior that would have been seen on any other day, suddenly is changed in an irrational way, when a panic is brought upon an individual. However, when reading this, I kept going back to, what exactly is irrational behavior? I understand that it is a choose made without logically looking at the circumstances, but does irrational behavior always have to be looked at being something negative?

As I was reading, I found many of the Methodological foundations hard to understand. The way some of the things were worded made it difficult to read. When reading the section on motive, I found it a little easier to understand. However, I think this is because of the idea of motive that is already in my mind. He states: "Motive is a complex of subjective meaning which seems to the actor himself or to the observer an adequate ground for the conduct in question." What I think he means here is in way motive is justification for an action that you have performed. I know from my own terms that motive is a reason given to do something.  When he states what he constitutes motive to be, it seems as though he is saying you have to be able to not only account for the actions you do and how they affect you, but also the people around you. They have to also see it fit to perform an action for a specific reason.

In the last part of the chapter he goes on to discus social action. What I got from this was that even though things may be done on a social level, or with the participation of others, when it comes down to it we are doing it for ourselves on an individual level. Everything around us can be done on a social level without doubt, an example he uses in the text is religion. Some may see religion as a social gathering or even, meeting with groups of people, or letting others reflect on your religious views. However, what Weber is saying is that it can also be done on an individual level, religion does not have to be looked at on a social level if you are for example, choosing to seclude yourself and pray on your own. He even talks about how as a whole we may do things similarly to one another, but in actuality it is just a common action in order to better ourselves. With this however, the common action that was performed was initially learned from one another. We may do things on an individual level, but it was something that was in the beginning learned from the other members of the society.