Introduction
Every academic discipline is defined by the work of a few founding fathers. One such figure is Max Weber, considered one of the most influential thinkers of the past century (Hanke et al., 2019). In a 1997 survey, two of his books were cited as the most influential publications (Kurthen, 2021). The “broad comparative, multidimensional, multi-causal, and transdisciplinary character” of his theories has been underlined as the reason for his continuing relevance in the social sciences and policy-making (Kurthen, 2021, p. 122). Born in 19th-century Prussia to a notable family, he studied law and eventually raised to prominence with the work The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (Hanke et al., 2019). Weber’s most significant contributions to sociology include his work concerning social reality, social stratification, modernity, authority, and the connection between religion and economics.
Social Reality
Weber is commended for pioneering a distinctive paradigm of social inquiry. In contrast to Durkheim’s positivism, he believed that social reality should be regarded as a subjective phenomenon whose meaning is produced on an individual basis (Hanke et al., 2019). Instead of striving to attain the objectivity of natural sciences and predict human behavior, sociology should focus on gaining an in-depth understanding of social worlds in the context of individual persons and historical processes (Conerly et al., 2021). Therefore, Weberian analysis focuses on the interaction between the social actions of individual actors, the structures through which their actions are coordinated, and the subsequent meaning produced (Hanke et al., 2019). Weber’s preoccupation with how an individual experiences society is the basis of symbolic interactionism, one of the three most fundamental sociological theories (Conerly et al., 2021). It utilizes modern qualitative research, which seeks to understand social issues through ethnography, interviews, observations, and content analysis.
Weber’s ideas concerning social reality are still relevant because they serve as the foundation of the anti-positivist, hermeneutic, interpretive tradition in sociology that has been termed symbolic interactionism. Therefore, modern scientists base their reasoning on these ideas when solving popular issues like the fairness of relations among society members, or equality in access to material and non-material resources in the state. These ideas are also widely used in social philosophy since mutual social perception is the basis of understanding modern social reality.
Social Stratification
Weber formed a three-component theory of social stratification that remains relevant. He believed that social differences are rooted in elements of “class, status, and power” (Conerly et al., 2021, p. 107). Similar to Marx, class is determined by economic ownership, but it can be modified by status or power. Status is based on social prestige, and power indicates the ability to control others (Conerly et al., 2021). The multidimensional model of social inequality is considered superior to Marx’s simplistic understanding of social differences being determined solely by ownership of means of production.
Weber drew a distinction between the material – “economic” – and the symbolic constituents of social theory. This distinction inspired Pierre Bourdieu’s class analysis in the latter half of the 20th century and subsequent understanding of social stratification in academic circles today (Wacquant, 2018). For example, twenty-first-century social media influencers are the prototypical example of individuals who can influence consumer decisions because of their perceived social prestige (Ki & Kim, 2019). Weber’s conceptualization of social stratification based on economic, political, and social power remains highly relevant today since it creates a more divaricated grounding for the perceived social success than Marx’s theory which was widely applied throughout the XXs century. In particular, the element of social status is integrated, which goes beyond the concepts of economic or political power.
Modernity
Weber’s theories have dictated sociological understanding regarding the nature and effects of modern capitalism in the Western framework. He considered it to be the predominant, formative force in contemporary human life and social structures (Hanke et al., 2019). Modern society is centered on logic and “rationalization”, which leads to efficiency at the expense of more intimate and meaningful human interaction (Hanke et al., 2021). This process results in a sense of “disenchantment with the world,” the so-called “iron cage” of modernity characterized by individuals feeling trapped by institutions and bureaucracy (Conerly et al., 2021, p. 108). Weberian top-down rationalization is largely accepted today as offering a “persuasive insight” into modern culture, intensified by the rise of consumerism, digital media, globalization, right-wing populism, and neoliberal market personalization (Hanke et al., 2019, p. 167). Furthermore, he pessimistically believed that the advancement of culture leads to “ever more devastating senselessness” (Hanke et al., 2019, p. 174). These sentiments are echoed in twenty-first-century sociological explorations of apocalyptic narratives and the postmodern fragmentation of beliefs, lifestyles, and conduct (Kurthen, 2021; Lestari & Kristianto, 2020). Weber’s views on rationalization as the engine of modernity continue to be central to the critical analysis of modern capitalism.
Authority
Weber was the first to create a typology of authority. He identified three types: traditional, charismatic, and rational-legal (Conerly et al., 2021). While traditional authority is “legitimized by long-standing custom”, charismatic is based on the leader’s personal appeal and rational-legal by the power vested into a particular ideology or office (Conerly et al., 2021). These three dimensions of authority have been crucial to creating an empirical framework regarding the complex distribution of political and economic power in society (Hanke et al., 2019). Furthermore, they have been used in recent research to explain the resurgence of nationalism and charismatic leaders such as Donald Trump (Joosse, 2018). Weber’s classification of social authority is still relevant in modern sociological discourse about power in contemporary capitalism.
Connection between Religion and Economics
Weber’s arguably most famous thesis concerns the Protestant work ethic. In a series of essays in 1904, he argued that the Protestant view of hard work and success as a sign of God’s favor led to the rise of rationalization and the capitalist economy (Conerly et al., 2021). The failure of Protestantism to spread outside of the West explains why capitalism did not develop in other parts of the world, such as China, despite more favorable external circumstances (Hanke et al., 2019). It was a revolutionary work of sociology at the time because, in opposition to Marx, Weber concluded that culture and religion influenced economics rather than the other way around.
The concept of the Protestant work ethic is still being utilized in modern sociological and organizational research. Although Weber’s genealogy of capitalism is controversial, it remains one of the most important works in sociology (Colvin & McCracken, 2017; El Hazzouri et al., 2018). Weber aptly outlined the realities of our lives when capitalism, starting with the demoralization of the Protestant work ethic, spread this truncated, demoralized ethic and rooted it in society. Today, the majority of studies dealing with issues of practical sociology consider the imperfection of capitalist “ethics” and offer alternatives, a vivid example of which are the practices of CSR and the environmental protection movement.
Conclusion
In conclusion, Weber has not been relegated to the role of an outdated classic but continues to be an active force within sociological discourse. First, he was the first to prioritize the meaning generated by individual social actions, which became the basis of the symbolic interactionism theory. Second, he differentiated between symbolic and material social stratification, directly influencing Bourdieu’s conceptualization of class inequality. Third, his pessimistic views of modernity and the meta-historical narrative of “rationalization” offer a persuasive insight into the postmodern ethos. Fourth, he created a classification system for social authority that is currently being utilized to explain the rise of right-wing populism and charismatic leadership. Finally, he offered a compelling argument about the dominance of the West resulting from Protestantism. Weber’s contributions have influenced and continue to significantly influence the field of sociology.
References
Colvin, C. L., & McCracken, M. (2017). Work ethic, social ethic, no ethic: Measuring the economic values of modern Christians. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 32(5), 1043-1053.
Conerly, T. R., Holmes, K., Tamang, A. L. (2021). Introduction to sociology (3rd ed.). OpenStax.
El Hazzouri, M., Main, K. J., & Sinclair, L. (2019). Out of the closet: When moral identity and protestant work ethic improve attitudes toward advertising featuring same-sex couples. Journal of Advertising, 48(2), 181-196.
Hanke, E., Scaff, L. A., & Whimster, S. (Eds.). (2019). The oxford handbook of Max Weber. Oxford University Press.
Joosse, Paul. (2018). Expanding Moral Panic Theory to include the agency of charismatic entrepreneurs: The case of Donald Trump. British Journal of Criminology, 58(4), 993-1012.
Ki, C. W. C., & Kim, Y. K. (2019). The mechanism by which social media influencers persuade consumers: The role of consumers’ desire to mimic. Psychology & Marketing, 36(10), 905-922.
Kurthen, H. (2021). Max Weber’s living legacy. Contemporary Sociology: A Journal of Reviews, 50(2), 118-123.
Lestari, M. C. O., & Kristianto, B. (2020). Children Of Men (2006): Representation of modern spirituality in an apocalyptic dystopian world. Udayana Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities, 4(1), 10-18.
Wacquant, L. (2018). Bourdieu comes to town: Pertinence, principles, applications. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 42(1), 90-105.