Weber Rationalisation & Bureaucracy PDF

Preview

Summary

Final essay for SCLG2601, highest mark of 89, Max Weber, rationalisation and bureaucracy ...

Description

480344892 SCLG2601 2019

Rationality and Bureaucracy in Modern Life Weber identified rationality as the key aspect of modernity, and explored how the processes of rationalisation create both positive and negative consequences for individuals and society (Adler 2012, p. 246). Contemporary Western society is often characterised as rational in that institutions are designed to maximise efficiency, predictability, and calculability, including the widespread use of technology to control uncertainties (Ritzer 1983, p. 100). The extent to which rationalisation pervades almost every aspect of modern life raises concerns about the erosion of individual freedoms as a result of rationalisation’s demands for impersonality, uniformity and standardisation (Koch 1993, p. 139). Weber also emphasised how the bureaucratic structure is indispensable for maintaining power in the modern capitalist era, as it possess ‘technical superiority over any other form of organisation’ (Weber 1922, p. 92). This is because bureaucracy, or at least Weber’s ideal type of bureaucracy, is a product of rational-legal authority that eliminates all other alternatives. Some argue that Weber was praising the expansion of instrumental rationality in society, whilst others believe Weber was warning against the effects of rational-legal domination (Al-Wagdani 2010, p. 22). Regardless of how Weber’s theories are construed, this essay will explore how Weber’s overall ambivalence regarding rationalisation and bureaucracy illustrates the conflicting impacts of modernity on individual lives (Brubaker 2013, p. 7).

Modern society, according to Weber, is subject to a rationalising mechanism that causes the dominant form of social action to be instrumental-rational, in which ‘the ends, the means and the secondary results’ are all considered, as opposed to value-rational or traditional actions (Dillon 2014, p. 131). This rational manner of thinking and acting manifests itself in governments, companies, and virtually all aspects of modern life (Ritzer 1983, p. 100). The effects of this phenomenon on modern life are twofold, summarised by Adler (2012, p. 244) as ‘imposing alienation as the price of efficiency’. However, this plays out differently in practice, and Adler’s reductionist approach fails to adequately reflect the complex interplay 1

480344892 SCLG2601 2019

between modernity’s advantages and disadvantages. Whether in favour of or against the expansion of rationality, Weber considered this endless quest for mastery and control over our surroundings to be an inevitable ‘trap’, hence the metaphor of the iron cage (Douglass 2018, p. 10).

Weber’s theories can be interpreted as a potentially positive view of how society is progressing. As scientific inquiry and rational thought supersede religion and traditional social action, society becomes arguably more efficient in achieving its goals, which can most clearly be observed in the capitalist economy (Royce 2015, p. 93). Influenced by ‘the spirit of Christian asceticism’ (Weber 1930, p. 87), capitalism’s growing demand for profits is achieved through increased reliability and efficiency of economic structures, standardisation of production, and the predictability or calculability of economic outcomes. Thus, rationalisation arguably improves the lives of individuals by allowing the market economy to operate smoothly, maximising profit and increasing material living standards. The presence of rationality also extends beyond the economy, emphasising the ‘optimum means to any given end’ (Ritzer 1983, p. 101), whether it be education, transport, leisure or health care. The effects of rationalisation on modern life can be assessed on an individual or society-wide basis. Due to the increased control and efficiency that rationalisation offers, individuals may live organised lifestyles with more time to experience leisure and entertainment. For example, it is undeniable that technological advances have reduced the pressures of human labour and margins of error, making production more time-efficient and reducing average working hours per week. Moreover, rationalisation allows society to pursue scientific inquiry to understand the world objectively – a pursuit of knowledge which can be considered beneficial and progressive (Scaff 2017, p. 67). Thus, although Weber (1922, p. 96) concluded that this rationalisation mechanism is almost impossible to overthrow, perhaps living in the metaphoric iron cage ultimately improves modern life for individuals and society.

Conversely, other critics believe that Weber’s message constitutes a ‘passionate warning about the threat posed by unchecked bureaucratic rationalisation to human freedom’ (Brubaker 2013, p. 1). This can accurately be applied to modern life to the extent that individuals are subject to processes of rationalisation at all times, sometimes against their will 2

480344892 SCLG2601 2019

and sometimes unknowingly (Dillon 2014, p. 139). Rationalisation is argued to have an alienating, disenchanting and dehumanising effect on individuals, as a result of the enforcement of uniformity which forces people to self-regulate and adapt to life within the iron cage (Scaff 2017, p. 67). The alienation of labour, due to the imposition of strict, standardised regulations, is a clear manifestation of these concerns. As society becomes more rational, impersonal and calculating, individuals are forced to adopt a cost-benefit or instrumental-rational manner of behaving, and no longer prioritise tradition or emotion based thinking. Koch (1993, p. 139) argues that ‘values are the essence of the individual’ and therefore, if human action is no longer driven by individual values, rationalisation inevitably leads to anomie and meaningless existence. However, this position is rather unpersuasive because it fails to consider whether individuals can still form valuable connections in a rational world. As illustrated by Dillon (2014, p. 132), instrumental rationality is merely an ideal type, and in reality, individuals are influenced by a variety of considerations that prove the continuation of religion, emotion, impulsivity and uncertainty in modern life. The complex consequences of rationalisation on modern life can be summarised as follows: rationalisation grants individuals greater control over the direction of their lives than any preceding generation, but it also threatens individual freedoms by imposing constraints and regimentation on social life (Royce 2015, p. 116). Thus, Weber and his critics identify the dual role that rationalisation plays in modern life, being both enabling and constraining for individuals and society.

Weber assessed the ideal type of bureaucracy to be the most rational system of organisation, and the rise and expansion of bureaucratic structures to be a hallmark of modernity (Weber 1922, p. 92). To analyse whether the merits of bureaucracy can be supported or critiqued, we must first consider the extent to which our contemporary existence approximates to or diverges from Weber’s ideal type (Al-Wagdani 2010, p. 24). Some key features of a bureaucratic organisation include: a hierarchical system with avenues for promotion and appeal, a subjection to impersonal rules, an emphasis on professional qualifications and certification, and perhaps most importantly, the separation of officials from their roles (Hopfl 2006, p. 10). With reference to our own society, it is evident that some institutions can be clearly defined as bureaucracies, including the legal system, government, economic enterprises and education. Weber (1922, p. 94) also predicted that bureaucracy and its

3

480344892 SCLG2601 2019

‘external supporting apparatus’ will continue to expand as society becomes more complicated and specialised, until it pervades all aspects of modern life. This notion is supported by the ever-increasing regulation of areas that were traditionally in the private sphere and previously exempt from organisation, including family, recreational sports and vacations. Additionally, bureaucratisation is arguably ‘accelerating’ in sectors that have previously resisted these processes, such as professional services and health care (Adler 2012, p. 244). This is evident in the increased organisation of social activities and relations, including subjection to formal written rules and procedures (Royce 2015, p. 108), thus aligning our existence closer to Weber’s vision of a thoroughly rational and bureaucratised society.

Alternatively, some critics argue that we have progressed into a neoliberal era of ‘postbureaucracy’ and thus the conditions Weber mentioned have been transcended by contemporary society (Douglass 2018, p. 17). This is not to say that we have definitively escaped the iron cage or that Weber’s ideas have become obsolete. However, it raises the possibility that the current organisation of our society departs from Weber’s ideal type to the extent that his assessments are no longer justified. However, supporters of ‘post-bureaucracy’ fail to acknowledge the strong prevalence of hierarchy, record keeping, specialisation and other bureaucratic characteristics today (Hopfl 2006, p. 19). Bureaucracy is not a social fact, and is instead a flexible notion that allows a wide range of deviance from Weber’s ideal type. Certainly, given the difficulty of defining bureaucracy itself, it would be misleading to say that we are in a ‘post-bureaucratic’ era. Thus, our contemporary existence is still very much subject to Weber’s assessments about bureaucracy and rationalisation, regardless of whether our theories of organisation diverge from Weber’s ideal type.

Weber’s assessment of the ideal type of modern bureaucracy – that it is an indispensable structure that will inevitably be used to organise all aspects of life – must consider both the advantages and disadvantages of rationalisation in society. Weber (1922, p. 95) explains how bureaucracy is a formidable system because it is based on legal-rational authority and consequently makes other alternatives seem impossible. We can clearly see this notion manifested in our contemporary existence as many ‘keep their noses steadfastly to the grindstone’ and alternatives to the prevailing system are almost unfathomable (Douglass 4

480344892 SCLG2601 2019

2018, p. 7). Its advantages include an unparalleled level of efficiency, professionalism, impartiality and specialisation that is useful in organising institutions, increasing output and suppressing opposition. Contrarily, Weber (1922, p. 92) suggests that as ‘bureaucracy develops the more perfectly, the more it is dehumanized’, again raising concerns about the alienating and dehumanising effect on individuals. Activities and relationships that were previously unpredictable and impulsive become increasingly codified and routinized, so that individuals and society experience disenchantment and rigidity (Royce 2015, p. 116). More hyperbolically, bureaucracy has been criticised as a disciplinary means of control that achieves efficiency ‘only at the terrible price of alienation’ or as a ‘coercive weapon for exploitation’ (Adler 2012, p. 246) that may encroach upon individual liberties even in the most private spheres. Moreover, the ‘irrationality of rationality’ is raised when one considers the negative implications of excessive rationalisation (Scaff 2017, p. 72). Examples of the irrational by-products of rationality include ‘red tape’ inefficiency, dehumanisation and the perceptions of lower quality of goods or services, despite higher quantities (Ritzer 1983, p. 106). This hints at a certain inherent loyalty to tradition, personalisation and human connection that even the most determined drive for rationalisation cannot erase. Accordingly, contemporary existence cannot be considered entirely rationalised and bureaucratised, and therefore the risks of dehumanisation and alienation are arguably exaggerated. Despite the potential negative consequences associated with rationalisation, bureaucracy remains the most effective and uncontested system of administration and organising society, perhaps simply because there is no reasonable alternative. The omnipotence of bureaucracy, regardless of whether it is in conflict with the individual (Koch 1993, p.134), makes it inescapable.

Thus, Weber’s theories on rationalisation and bureaucracy have multifaceted implications for modern life. Fears of a ‘bleak’, emotionless society (Ritzer 1983, p. 106) have been proven to be largely unsubstantiated. However, this stance offers some truth in that the objective impersonality of rationalisation and bureaucracy reduces the use of traditional or valuerational social action, leading to a somewhat dehumanising effect. However, tradition and emotions are not eliminated entirely. Individuals can engage in the ‘calculative adaptation of means to independently formulated ends’ whilst maintaining their individualism, identity and emotional bonds (Hopfl 2006, p. 16). Similarly, rationalisation seeks to increase the

5

480344892 SCLG2601 2019

predictability and calculability of life, but this is not to say that ‘disenchantment’ will become the norm, since the quest for mastery over one’s surroundings is arguably endless – that is, life will never be completely predictable. Rather than analysing rationalisation as a zero-sum game (in which any increase in efficiency corresponds to a decrease in human freedom), we should recognise the possibility of these factors coexisting peacefully. Bureaucracy plays a valuable and indispensable role in the organisation of modern life, and it can be argued that the disadvantages of the system can be effectively managed to enjoy the advantages. On the other hand, perhaps it is the case that the domination of bureaucratised authority has become so embedded in society that merely exploring an alternative seems futile and impossible. Regardless, any revolutionary changes in the near future seem unlikely and the prevailing system retains its authority, thus truly demonstrating the implications of the ubiquitous ‘iron cage’.

Word Count: 1994.

REFERENCES Adler, P 2012, ‘Perspective –The Sociological Ambivalence of Bureaucracy: From Weber via Gouldner to Marx’, Organisational Science, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 244-266. Al-Wagdani, A 2010, ‘Beyond Weberian Bureaucracy: Max Weber on Bureaucracy and his Critics’, Journal of Social Sciences, vol. 38, no. 3, pp. 11-27. Brubaker, R 2013, The Limits of Rationality, Routledge, London, UK. Dillon, M 2014, Introduction to Sociological Theory: Theorists, Concepts and their Applicability to the Twenty-First Century, 2nd edn, Wiley-Blackwell, Hoboken, New Jersey, USA. Douglass, B 2018, The Iron Cage Revisited: Max Weber in the Neoliberal Era, Routledge, New York, NY. Hopfl, H 2006, ‘Post-Bureaucracy and Weber’s ‘Modern’ Bureaucrat’, Journal of Organisational Change Management, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 8-21. 6

480344892 SCLG2601 2019

Koch, A 1993, ‘Rationality, Romanticism and the Individual: Max Weber's "Modernism" and the Confrontation with "Modernity"’, Canadian Journal of Political Science, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 123-144. Ritzer, G 1983, ‘The ‘McDonaldization’ of Society’, Journal of American Culture, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 100-107. Royce, E 2015, Classical Social Theory and Modern Society: Marx, Durkheim, Weber, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Lanham, USA. Scaff, L 2017, ‘Max Weber’ in Rob Stones (ed.), Key Sociological Thinkers, 3rd edn, Palgrave MacMillan, Basingstoke, Hampshire. Weber, M 1922, ‘Bureaucracy’, in Farganis, J (ed.), Readings in Social Theory: The Classic Tradition to Post-Modernism, McGraw-Hill, NY. Weber, M 1930, ‘The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism’, in Farganis, J (ed.), Readings in Social Theory: The Classic Tradition to Post-Modernism, McGraw-Hill, NY.

7...