Rationality has been studied and defined by both philosophers and sociologists over a long period of time now. Philosophers use reason and rationality as their major methods when it comes to the analysis of data collected from well defined observation methods (Sica, 2004, 2). In sociology and related disciplines, rationality of a given situation or decision depends mainly on whether it is optimal in nature or not.
On the other hand, persons or organisations are said to be rational if their actions are optimal as far as achievement of objectives is concerned. An optimal action refers to the pursuance of the most desired outcomes within limits that have either been expressed or implied. Sociological rationalisation refers to the process of series of actions and engagements by human beings with an aim of achieving a purposive and well calculated ends which does not rely on emotions, moral considerations, or traditions (Farganis, 2008, 35).
Rationalisation is considered as a key characteristic of the modernisation process. In the need for social services, one can talk of rational allocation of available resources. When it comes to organisational operations, proposed corporate strategies can be said to be optimally rational.
Many sociological researchers have tried to investigate the concept of rationality in order to understand it fully. They have defined rationality as the process and success in the pursuit of a given objective regardless of the nature of the objectives (Pampel, 2007, 24). This implies that any act of rationality is not screened in terms of its ethicality, morality, or other forms of criticisms.
For philosophers, a high quality rationale ought to be free from the influence of emotions, personal preferences, and any other feelings that may create bias. Many rationality theories have been advanced by researchers to explain this concept. The essay seeks to critically analyse Weber’s idea of rationality and the conclusions that he drew about the effects of rationalisation on modern life.
Max Weber was a renowned German classical sociologist who lived between 1864 and 1920. Weber, as a sociologist, was more concerned with the interpretation of the different actions in the social settings. He defined sociology as a science which seeks to understand and interpret human behavior with an aim of being able to explain the causes of given behaviour/action, the course which they would take, and the impacts of the behaviours/actions (Sica, 2004, 5).
His theory provides a subjective description of factors that are thought to influence the various social actions which in turn define a given society. In his theory, Weber distinguishes between action and behaviour. He notes that action occurs as a result of deliberate and conscious process where people try to attach meaning to their actions as well as understanding their environment. Behaviour, on the other hand, is described by Weber as an automatic reaction which occurs unconsciously or with little consciousness.
Weber proposed that human action/behaviour could best be understood by exploring how people regard their actions and what they associate their interactions, actions, and experiences with ((Pampel, 2007, 33). In order to understand the various social actions and behaviours, Max Weber formulated different types of rationality which were ideals. These ideals are the sociologists’ intellectual constructs that can be used in exploring historical facts.
He categorised rationality (action-based) into four distinct types. According to him, there is the purposive rational action which is also called instrumental rationality action. This type of rationality is associated with the expectations concerning the behavior of human beings or things that exist in the surrounding (Morrison, 1995, 212). The behavioural expectations are the ways through which a given actor uses to achieve some goals or ends. The ends, from Weber’s judgment, are pursued in a rational manner and following well calculated moves.
The second type of rational action that was identified by Weber is the belief or value-oriented rationality. This type involves actions executed by an actor subject to the intrinsic reasons which may include ethical, religious, and aesthetic value systems. The actions, however, are not judged whether they will lead to success or not. This contradicts the philosophical perspective which considers the means in justifying the ends and vise versa.
Affectual rationality was the third approach of interpreting rational action. Weber explained that this type is determined by the actor’s affectual orientation, feelings or emotions. He also emphasized that this type of rationality was on the intermediate position of what can be regarded as meaningfully oriented rationality. This type shares some characteristics with the philosopher’s perspective of rational actions.
The last type of interpreting social actions is the traditional rationality. This is determined by the existing norms or habits in a given society (Farganis, 2008, 56). Weber argued that some human actions are controlled by what one has learnt over time, and he/she acts in a given way not because he/she chooses to, but because he/she thinks that it is how it is expected to be done. His classifications were based on the most dominant type of behaviour orientation and its interpretation.
However, Weber noted that no single type can be used in understanding the actions in the environment; instead, integration of the various types of rationality was common among human beings (Ritzer & Goodman, 2003, 110). He further emphasised that the first two types of rationality were the most common and reliable in the interpretation of social actions. Affectual and traditional rationality were considered as being details of the first two.
From a critical point of view, Weber’s classification of the types of interpreting social actions can be considered as having both some strengths as well as weaknesses. On the positive, the kinds of rationality proposed provide an easy way of interpreting behaviour. It does not discriminate some behaviours on the basis of their being irrational.
They provide a basis for interpreting behaviour depending on the criterion used. A given social act may not meet the purposive interpretation but may be explained using another kind, for instance the belief-oriented or the affectual type. On the other hand, actions whose bases are traditional may not be explained by the purposive rationality.
Some loopholes in Weber’s ideas on the interpretation of social actions have been identified. From a Habermasian’s point of view, the approach lacks the consideration of social context (Pampel, 2007, 40). It also underestimates the potential of social power as far as transforming existing norms and traditions is concerned.
Moreover, the feminist proponents have criticised the idea citing the need by Weber’s idea to maintain male dominance as misguided (Morrison, 1995, 218). This is mainly as prescribed by the first and the fourth types of rationality. From ancient traditions, most social actions have been shaped around masculine values and powers. From Weber’s perspective, these should always be considered when it comes to the interpretation of social actions.
Another prominent sociologist by the name Etzioni used Weber’s proposals for the interpretation of human behaviour to re-construct an understanding of social actions (Morrison, 1995, 248). He argued that purposive rationality is controlled by the consideration of existing norms.
These norms regulate how human beings ought to act. Etzioni also points out that affective rationality plays a central role in helping people to socialise with one another. He emphasized that these two considerations are key in the development of a new decision-making model as opposed to Weber’s proposal.
Apart from the four types of interpreting social actions, Weber also proposed four types of rationality. The types are: practical, theoretical, substantive, and formal rationality. Most studies point out that Weber was more concerned with formal rationality which focused mostly on and contributed to the understanding of historical developments. This process led to rationaliasation which helped in the transformation of the Western world (Pampel, 2007, 49).
Weber was curious in wanting to know the historical trends that shaped the success of rationalisation in the Western states and its failure to take effect in other countries. He was able to single out religion as a major force that led to rationalisation in the West. The Protestant ethic in the Western world significantly contributed to its rationalisation. Weber continued to argue that the Protestant ethic was so intense that it caused the ultimate emergence of capitalism in this part of the world (Farganis, 2008, 46).
His focus on the role of religion in other countries showed that the economic ethics taught by Confucianism and Hinduism hampered rationalisation and thus preventing the emergence of capitalism in the countries in which the kinds of religion were practiced, especially in China and India respectively.
Moreover, Weber’s rationality theory focused on the various types of authority. He concentrated on the forces of legitimate dominion in human relationships. Weber developed three basic types/structures of authority; traditional, charismatic, and rational-legal. This can be considered as being the ideal types of authority that researchers can use when comparing given phenomena (Sica, 2004, 105).
Of the three types of authority, Weber was more concerned with understanding the rational-legal structure, especially the way in which it was organised. The rational-legal authority was organised in a bureaucratic manner. This type enhanced rationalisation through the empirical estimations that were made to it. It is controlled by rules and set laws of the land or a given organisation.
Traditional authority, on the other hand, is concerned with the belief systems of established societies which are manifested through their practices and norms. A given authority is recognised as being legitimate due to its continued practice (Pampel, 2007, 57). This type of authority is often associated with patriarchalism, patrimonialism, feudalism, and gerontocracy.
Furthermore, charismatic authority refers to the belief that develop towards leaders perceived to have extraordinary capabilities. The powers possessed by the leader should be recognised by the followers since they play a central role in every form of authority (Ritzer & Goodman, 2003, 121).
Organisations with have some form of charismatic characteristics will mostly have a charismatic leader. The greatest challenge in charismatic organisations or groups is the replacement of the leader incase of a vacancy. As a result, organisations under such authority have resorted to the routinisation of charisma and hence the adoption of either rational-legal type of authority or the traditional authority (Morrison, 1995, 271).
From Weber’s perspective, rationalisation has taken root in virtually all spheres, particularly in the field of economy, religion, law, art, and the city and thus affecting the modern human life. According to Weber, modern rationalisation in the West has been enhanced by religious (Calvinism) economic ethics and capitalism as well as the rational-legal authority.
It is the process of rationalisation, according to Weberian sociology, that is responsible for modernity (Sica, 2004, 124). The different types of rationality discussed earlier are used to explain the rationalisation process. Additionally, Weber saw rationalisation as being similar to disenchantment. Disenchantment can be defined as the process of making the world devoid of mystery, magic, and other spiritual forces (Morrison, 1995, 303).
From a religious point of view, rationalisation is the equivalent of secularisation. This implies that most social sectors and practices are not controlled by religion and its institutions. The process of demystifying the world of the numerous gods, secularisation, and rationalisation was propelled by the emergence of science and capitalism (Ritzer & Goodman, 2003, 137).
According to Weber, the process of rationalising the world was unstoppable since despite the fact that the process started in the West, its impact has since been felt virtually everywhere (Morrison, 1995, 277).
He sees the process as a defining characteristic for modernity which will ultimately make the world emptier. This is because rationality does not regard human emotions, traditions, affective human ties, and mystery. Instead, human relations are viewed from economic relations, impersonal relationships as well as expertise orientation which he referred to as professionalisation.
Weber thinks that the values which used to hold the social fabric together in the past have been diminished in the recent past as a result of the rationalisation process (Ritzer & Goodman, 2003, 149). Formally creative arts, particularly music and painting have henceforth lost their value due to the same process. From a Weberian point of view, the modern life is drawing more to being disenchanted and rationalised.
The essay has critically elaborated Max Weber’s complex idea of rationality and rationalisation as well as the conclusions he reached concerning the impacts of rationalisation on the modern life. He noted that rationalisation is a continuous process in the modern society.
Some of the forces that Weber identified as propagating the process include; Protestantism, economic systems, democracy, subject knowledge, and bureaucratic organisation of the society. He also notes that the future of the modern life lies in the intrigues of status, class, and party/power. We can therefore conclude from a Weberian perspective that modern times are shaped by rationalisation and intellectualisation processes.
Farganis, James (ed.) (2008) Readings in Social Theory- The Classical Tradition to Post-Modernism. 5th edition. Boston: McGraw Hill, pp. 35-107
Morrison, David K. (1995) Marx, Durkheim Weber. London: SAGE, pp. 212-255; 270-304
Pampel, Francis (2007) Sociological Lives and Ideas – An Introduction to the Classical Theorists. New York: Worth Plc. pp. 23-58
Ritzer, George. & Goodman, Douglas J. (2003) Sociological Theory. Sixth Edition. Boston: McGraw Hill ‘Max Weber’ pp. 108-152
Sica, Alan (2004) Max Weber and the new century. Transaction Plc. 1-130