What is the definition of sociology and of social action? Weber goes on through the entire chapter to give a good explanation of the types and reasoning of why people do what they do. It’s as simple as that, right? Well, after reading this I now know that there are more reason to our actions than simply basing them on internal emotions. This piece of writing covers all kinds of rational and unrational explanations for why humans react the way they do to life processes. Now my interpretation may be a little off, but I am simply going to explain what I took from the chapter.
The section about methodological foundations got me a bit confused. Weber explains that there are two kinds, the actual existing meaning or the theoretically conceived pure type of subjective meaning. Basically, this is to determine whether an action is relevant, or if the action is based on a person’s emotion and meaning of the situation. The rational meaning can then be broken down. If a person is acting rationally, there must be a reason why. People can act logically and mathematically, or they can it can be more internal and be based on empathic or artistically qualities. For logic and mathematical reasons, individuals must have prior knowledge or they may think a problem through to find an appropriate answer before acting on it. Emotional means are not as high regarded since a person’s actions are based on no actual proven theories, but their internal instinct. I do somewhat agree with this idea from Weber. Sometimes people’s judgment can be clouded by their emotions, causing them to act irrationally. On the other hand though, some to the best instincts to acting come from internal drive.
I liked this statement by Weber. He states, “Every interpretation attempts to attain clarity and certainty, but no matter how clear an interpretation as such appears to be from the point of view of meaning, it cannot on this account claim to be the causally valid interpretation. On this level it must remain only a peculiarly plausible hypothesis…” What I believe Weber is saying here is that we can only try to predict why people take the actions they do. In other words, we may never know why people react in situations, so we must only try to observe and make predictions and hypothesis on why a particular course of action was taken.
I am going to skip ahead to the idea of social action. I actually found this to be the most interesting part of the chapter. This for me, related more to my idea of sociology and how people react in society. This section did cause me to develop a few questions though. Do we really act based on how our peers and other members of society act? Have we been conditioned to act certain ways and express dominant behaviors on matters simply because of our cultures? I felt that Weber’s statement of the cyclists was a good way to clearly define social action. He states, “A mere collision of two cyclists may be compared to a natural event. On the other hand, their attempt to avoid hitting each other, or whatever insult, blows, or friendly discussion might follow the collision, would constitute ‘social action’.” Perhaps they do not feel it is acceptable to react in a violent manner towards each other. The next example Weber used is more clearly related to what I believed was a main cause for people’s action in social situations. Weber gives the scenario of people all putting their umbrellas up during the rainstorm at the same time. He then says, “It is well known that actions of the individual are strongly influenced by the mere fact that he is a member of a crowd confined within a limited space. Basically I think Weber is trying to say that we sometime do things because everyone else is doing them. We are known to learn from others and mimic them. In our society, people usually feel the need to conform.
The types of social actions given make sense to the idea of crowd confined within limited space. In the least complex way of describing what these are, and how they affect people actions, they go as follows: 1. expectations set by the environment, 2. person beliefs or ethics, 3. emotional state, 4. doing what you have been taught. Each of these factors contribute to the logic or emotional reasoning based on a person’s actions. Some of these being rational or irrational, but overall, Weber believes that these are the keys in forming hypothesis and predictions.
Sunday, February 8, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I do completely agree with you about the fact that there are so many reasons to why people do things. I've never really thought this deeply about actions of people, but now that I have it's pretty interesting. We both "deciphered" Weber the same, although we could both be wrong.
Exsisting or subjective meanings, which is most important? I agree with you more than Weber. My understanding of Weber was that he thinks that if you’re not thinking rationally, you’re not making a good choice. I always thought we were supposed to follow our “gut instincts,” or to “listen to your heart.” I know from my own past experiences that following your heart can lead to poor choices, and your gut instincts can make you feel like a paranoid schizophrenic, but in the end it’s made me a stronger person. I think it’s necessary in life to have rational and irrational choices, which can lead to rational or irrational emotions. The irrational choices are usually fly by the seat of your pants, and more fun.
Social action was very interesting. To answer your question, in my opinion I think we do act the way we do because of our environment. Although, I also think we are born with parts of our personality, the people we’re in contact with do affect our social selves. Weber does talk about the environment as well. It’s the whole nature vs. nurture battle. I agree that all factors can contribute to people’s reasoning.
I thought that this was a very excellent explanation of the reading. I think that I might be able to try and explain the actual meaning and the conceived subjective meaning a little further.
I completely agree with the statement “this is to determine whether an action is relevant, or if the action is based on a person’s emotion and meaning of the situation.” This has a lot to do with whether things are happening “outside” the body or whether, the opposite, things are happening to it. A person’s conceived notion of what is happening around them can influence their thoughts or actions. The mind then calculates a move that may or may not be against their will. Our mind can see the situation and do one of two things. We can, either take prior knowledge of other “actors” and their experiences and duplicate them, or we give the situation meaning and try and act. This may cause conflict in our mind that this may not be the only interpretation of the situation. Our mind is inherently trying to compare the situation to another and it can’t. this is where motive drives us to make a decision. This motive is subjective however. It is only subjective to how many times the situation pans out the way it normally does.
I thought that the section on social action was pretty easy to read. The example of the cyclist was a very good way to sum up the whole section. The two cyclists could hit each other and it could be a perfectly natural event. It becomes a social act when they try to avoid each other or anything that happens afterward. The two human beings were in complete coexistence and not aware of each other. It becomes a social act when the see and recognize the situation and person and decide to act on the impending collision.
I think that you did a good job on dissecting some of the major points that Max Weber made with in this piece of writing. I think both Weber and you gave good criteria and thoughts on the concepts of reasoning, whether it is rational or irrational, and also society and the social action that it undergoes with in itself. Some of the aspects that I grasped and thought were intriguing were how certain circumstances can alter or have an affect on the methods we take to reason with something. Also I have thoughts of this numerous times by myself, of the effects that society has had on the individual. Finally, I find the fact that our cultures have great affect on the way we act towards ourselves and others. We as a civilization want to fit in with each other and to accomplish this make a valiant effort to conform to ‘set’ ideas or foundations.
As explained in this section the types of social action that can be applied are: instrumentally rational which would be affected by the conditions of the environment or the means that need to be taken to get to an end. Next would be value rational which would coincide with the beliefs that one might have. Furthermore would be affectual rational that deals with feelings and states of the person itself. And then finally you have traditional rational which is based on ‘ingrained habituation’.
I love the aspect that an individual is truly not an individual but yet another product of society of which he or she has grown up in. Thinking of how what is around us makes us who we are and not what we want to be. The effects that society and a culture have on us are so powerful that we have either the choice to conform or be looked down upon as different. As for most people, conforming is a major part of any culture to the affects of what has been taught to us and the need each person might have to feel as if the belong or have an identity. In doing this we reflect what our cultures intend us to emulate and reflect on that specific society. Rational or irrational choices are made to be another social behavior in which can help try to explain why people make the choices that they do. As sociology changed back then it still changes today to the fact that we know so little of the methods or actions that a person takes with in a society.
Post a Comment