This chapter is all about the different status, class, and parties that people come from or work there way into. This is very different for him than it is to all of us since we don’t have these separations to the extent that they used to be. But it still defines where this feeling of power, or honor come from, which both deal a lot with each status, class, and parties.
Weber starts this chapter with status which comes from those who own property and those who lack property, which in today’s society would be the rich and poor. He breaks down status even further from property owners to what type of property they own such as warehouses, and then for the people who lack property that offer services down in to types of services the offer. Then there are status groups that are within statuses. These people according to Weber are those “whose fate is not determined by the chance of using goods or services for themselves on the market, e.g., slaves.” Of course we always have to remember this is not written in recent times, but in America today I would say status groups no longer exist since everyone has equal opportunity for everything.
One way Weber defines class from “economic interests,” when he defines class interest he explains how it’s not interest with if you like what task your doing or not but he states class interest as “the class situation and other circumstances remaining the same, the direction in which the individual worker for instance, is likely to pursue his interests may varey widely according to whether he is constitutionally qualified for the task at hand to a high, to an average, or to a low degree.” Being qualified at a low degree does not give a lot of interest to the person for whom the task is being followed through for; which leads to a lower class.
I think Weber contradicts himself when he says “property as such is not always recognized as a status qualification, but in the long run it is.” But he then later says “Both propertied and propertyless people can belong to the same status group, and frequently they do with very tangible consequences.” If property in the long run is a status qualification how can people with out the same property status be in the same group?
For the ethnic segregation and caste system Weber states how “status group evolves into a closed caste. He then defines caste dealing with religion that have “distinct cults and gods.” I have always figured caste systems were always segregated by economic status only. I think we should all be thankful that caste systems aren’t to the full extent today that they were back then, even though some people look down on the poor when they have a lot of money.
Finally Weber comes to parties which are most of the time mixed from status and classes. Today besides Republicans or Democratic parties I would say Weber definition of parties is more like our organized clubs today. Weber defines parties as “their action is oriented toward the acquisition of social power, that is to say toward influencing social action, no matter what it’s content may be.” For example a club today is about the animal humane society, in which their social action is to save animals.
No matter what status, class or party people are or come from today’s society is all about choice and equal opportunity, unlike back in Weber’s time. I am very happy that our society as worked it way to what it is now.
Sunday, February 15, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I really like the way Ashley wrote this blog, it made it a little easier for me to understand what the chapter was talking about. One thing however, she wrote about recent times not really having status groups anymore, I feel we still do in today's society. I do not think the status groups are as prominent as they were in the latter years but I feel they're still around. There are alot of things that deal with status for example I'm in Deviant Behavior as well as other Sociology classes and we are always talking about class and status.
I didn't really undetstand what Weber or Ashley ment when describing the economic interests. I was a little confused, our economic interest is something we like to do, or is not something we like to do? I agree with Ashley when she says that she thinks Weber contradicts himself, how can your class status be determined by if you own property or not but then you can belong to the same class status group as someone whom does not own property?
I also though caste systems were more economic based, how can religion play into the caste system? This is another area of weber that I'm a little confused about as well. I really like the way she broke "parties" down into talking about a club where there is an act for cause. I agree however, she could add different organizations that we have throughout America today such as the Red Cross, SPCA, Salvation Army, etc, instead of just the local club. Overall I think she did a great job and helped me understand Weber a little better!!
I think it's important to mention Weber's take on power and I'm a little surprised it wasn't mentioned, I think that might explain why Weber thinks that it is possible for people who have property and those who don't to be in the same class. It is possible for somebody who owns no property to hold power which may help bump them up in class. Power comes in a lot of different varieties and it would probably help if we knew what kind of power Weber is refering to, he mentions economic and social power and then refers to another power and doesn't clarify so that causes a little confusion on my part.
I think Weber broke down parties pretty nicely. When you think about it the higher up democrats and republicans are only trying to get more power. If the democrats take power in the White House and take a majority in the senate and the house then they are able to get the stuff done that they want done. I relate more to that part of the party break down. I understand clubs are trying to get what they want done but when I think of social power I think of the government, and I think the government can accomplish more than the animal humane society.
I also liked how Ashley broke down Weber’s confusing examples into present tense examples. The way she did this made it easier to relate to what Weber was talking about in the chapter. I do not tend to agree though with the statement Ashley made with status no longer existing. Personally, I have a hard time agreeing that everyone is given an equal opportunity for everything in our society. The privileged tend to have more opportunities than the people that live in slums. Although, I do believe we have a better chance at moving ourselves on the rungs of the status group ladder than our parents. Whether or not that is rising or falling, I think we are the ones who ultimately modify our own way of living.
I do not fully understand the “economic interest” connection Weber makes. Reading this part and thinking “propertied and propertyless people can belong to the same status group” does not make much sense. Previously he said that propertyless people would be those of slaves. So I do not understand the connection that a land owner and a slave could be of the same group. Maybe I misinterpreted his example, but that is what I understood it to be.
Ashley brings a great point at the end of her review. We must be happy and content that we do not live in the society that Weber interpreted. In Weber’s “old” society status, class, and parties were instilled in the individuals at birth. At least in “today’s” society, we have a little say on how we want to live our lives and can somewhat choose what we want.
“Both propertied and propertyless people can belong to the same status group, and frequently they do with very tangible consequences.”
Weber followed this up with a good explanation in the form of the American boss playing cards with his subordinate at the club. He explained how in America it would be straight up rude for the "boss" to treat his "worker" as such outside the business.
Hopefully this example will help answer Ashely's earlier question regarding how people with and without property can belong to the same status group. Think of it this way, when you belong to a certain group there's usually more to it than just property and status. It's usually a community of people who each share the same lifestyles and or have similar attitudes/ideas on how they live their lives. Money doesn't always have to be the main focus, but as Weber pointed out, it's often the case.
Going back to Weber's quote, conflicts between those with property and those without still occurs even if they're in the same status group. A good example of this would be someone who just came into money, i.e. lottery winner(who might have been considered propertyless beforehand) moving onto the same street, who now plays golf at the same country club as those who have always been from money. In this situation I would see conflict as inevitable. I might be wrong, but that's my understanding of Weber and the argument.
I agree that to say that the status and class problems are all pass is not very true. A lot of people are very stuck in the class they were born in even in the United States. And though obviously it is much easier to move within the social structure now that it was than it is still very hard to do.
I think that does make sense that castes become a religious issue. Most obviously Hinduism is linked with the Indian chaste system which is extremely segregated. Also, once a group is so strictly segregated it is only natural that they would develop unique religious traditions and beliefs just like any other group of people.
Also religious beliefs in the past has been a big reason for discrimination and prejudice and therefore, like the Jews in many situations can be the cause of closed chaste.
Post a Comment