How has the world been changing?
Many historically minded social researchers who have tried to answer this question have had in the back of their minds some kind of theory of social evolution. They believe that all societies are progressing, from point A to point B.
This is not so much the case for the German sociologist Max Weber. For some reason, we’ve never Anglicized Weber’s last name, and so it’s still VAY-burr, not Webber.
Weber’s ambivalence about evolutionary theory is apparent in his multiple, varied uses of the concept rationalization. I’m going to do three things here: I’m going to give a little bit of information about Weber. I’m going to talk about five forms of rationalization in Weber’s work. And I’m going to give a contemporary application of Weber’s rationalization analysis. Weber is a dead white man, but his ideas are certainly not dead.
Weber was most active in between the turn of the century – that’s from the 1800s to the 1900s – to right after the end of World War One. Weber’s most famous book was "The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism." But his magnum opus was really the two-volume, 2,000-page "Economy and Society."
In Economy and Society Weber argues that there are four kinds of rationality:
- Affective rationality: emotions: how we feel
- Value rationality: ultimate principles: what is right
- Traditional rationality: the way we’ve always done things
- Instrumental rationality: the most effective, or efficient, means towards a given end
Let’s keep in mind this information about Weber as we look at the forms of rationalization in his work.
When you hear the word rationalization, you probably first think of a logical sounding excuse for something that is truly inexcusable. This is not so much how Weber used the concept rationalization. Rationalization, for Weber, was any one of a number of different types of process of social and historical change.
One form of rationalization in Weber’s work is the separation of the spheres. Weber held that the spheres of life that had appeared in the modern world, in earlier times in some cultures had been all fused together with the religious sphere as predominant. Over time what separated out and developed were the aesthetic or cultural sphere, the sphere of knowledge or science, the economic sphere or the market, the political sphere or the government, and finally even the erotic sphere or the sphere of personal relations.
A second form of rationalization in Weber’s work overlaps with the first. This was the internal logical development of really any area, and the elimination of logical inconsistency. For example, Weber argued that the development of the Calvinist-Presbyterian doctrine of predestination was among other things a kind of logical working out of certain problems in theology.
A third form of rationalization in Weber’s work was the ascendancy of instrumental rationality, linked with the development of science and technology. Weber gave the same examples of this several times. Let’s say the Chinese regard a certain mountain as sacred. When an engineer and an economic development specialist tell them: You must build a railroad right through or right around the mountain. It is the perfect place – the Chinese would balk. Among other things, they fear something bad might happen if they build the railroad.
Another country, in an analogous situation, might not have the same scruples. They might go ahead and build the railroad, and let’s say nothing bad does happen. (Weber clearly hadn’t seen the movie "Avatar.") This other country might develop economically in a way China does not – hence, the ascendancy of instrumental rationality, over what Weber might call magical thinking.
A fourth form of rationalization in Weber’s work was what I call thematization and publicization. Weber believed that important issues of the day ought to be discussed and debated, and debated publicly. Weber was not so much a champion of democracy, as a German nationalist. We believed that the secrecy and lack of debate in the years leading up to Germany’s entry into World War One, which they lost, disserved his country. He felt like public debate could help produce better policy decisions and help rationalize the policy-making process.
A fifth form of rationalization in Weber’s work was increasingly disciplined lifestyles. For example, Weber argued that the impulse to make profits had existed since the beginning of time, in all cultures. We might call this Jack Sparrow capitalism. But the systematic, methodical, disciplined pursuit of profit-making and property accumulation – sought for a time with religious fervor – was something that was truly unique to what Weber called rational bourgeois capitalism.
You can see how a number of these different processes of rationalization overlap. For that reason, it may come as no surprise to you to learn that a number of students of Weber have argued that these processes fit neatly together in one, overarching evolutionary scheme. But I think this really misreads Weber. These processes can also clash. A given country, in a given historical situation, probably faces choices, faces different possible development paths, instead of one straight-line path, on which it must travel.
I promised to give you a contemporary application of Weber’s rationalization analysis. This comes from the debate over stem cell research. On the one hand, you have advocates of stem cell research, like the President, who sometimes argue that this is a scientific issue, that scientists should settle by applying scientific principles. On the other hand, you have critics of stem cell research, some of whom are religious leaders, who argue that religious and ethical issues are involved.
You can see a clash here between the religious sphere and the sphere of knowledge or science. These spheres are separating, but still are overlapping, engaged, and, sometimes, in tension. It’s also possible to interpret the criticism of stem cell research as a kind of challenge to the ascendancy of instrumental rationality, linked with the development of science and technology.
I have reviewed forms of rationalization that appear in Weber’s work. I’ve talked about: separation of the spheres, internal logical development, the ascendancy of instrumental rationality, thematization and publicization, and increasingly disciplined lifestyles. I have argued that Weber’s various forms of rationalization do NOT fit together into one, overarching, evolutionary scheme. And I have tried to show that Weber’s analysis of rationalization is still relevant in the contemporary period.
Now, I have to admit: I love Weber. I love reading Weber. I love writing about Weber, and I love talking about Weber. I hope you will not see in my claim of Weber’s contemporary relevance just an excuse for me to talk with you about him. I hope you will not see this claim as just another . . . rationalization.
-- Perry
Click here to see the separation of the spheres diagram up close:
