Weberian

I made passing reference to a Weberian concept a while back and will expend on it and others here. Max Weber was a German sociologist who died of the Spanish Flu pandemic a hundred years ago. He produced some key academic concepts that I was exposed to at uni. Many of his works were published posthumously by his wife Marianne Weber who was a sociologist in her own right. The Webers were politically involved in the small-l liberal party of the Weimar Republic but never became historical icons of that cause. The focus of Weber was on describing society rather than proselytizing. However some of his notions are very useful even today.

Class And Status

One thing that draws me to Webarian thinking is its acknowledgement of the complex interplay of factors in human behaviour that make it difficult for the humanities to aspire to the predictive power of sciences. Weber was careful to include many and even subjetive elements into his models. So economics can shape culture but the inverse is also true. Something I wish was in more use was his distinction between 'class' as economic and 'status' as cultural. By separating these concepts Weber could fit his theory to the reality of the new rich and the new poor rather than say that riches and honours must always go hand-in-hand. The model was further elaborated by the addition of 'party' as the fracturing of political allegiances - you cannot assume my party preferences simply by knowing my status or class.

Distinguishing class and status can help better understand various groups and interactions between groups. Australian bogans for instance can suffer inter-generational welfare dependence but they can also be self-employed and rather affluent. As such I think of them as a trans-class status group characterized by boorish manners.

Tensions often exist between those of more esteemed status and those of more affluent class. Some political differences correspond to clashes between cultural and economic elites. In particularly entrenched cases they can align with other differences - consider the case of Fiji in which the nobility are native Fijians but many entrepreneurs are of Indian origin.

Bureaucracy

Another area Weber examined was the development of bureaucracy as a rational (that is a rules-driven and expert-managed) form of human organization (which I understand can both be public or private). The thing that stayed with me the most from this topic is that such organizations are formed to serve particular aims but then also add one more aim - perpetuation of the organization under all circumstances. Naturally, bureaucrats want to keep the jobs and the power that has been vested in them. A bureaucracy will always find ways of redefining itself to still be needed.

I feel that the same can apply to amorphous movements too. Participants find a sense of belonging and purpose in them. They may well then focus on more vague and distant aims. They may even have difficulty recognizing the progress they have made if this makes the cause seem less urgent or important. An organization uses memos to communicate its directives while a movement will have memes to help set trends. And while one has officers, the other will have its own natural leaders.

Charismatic Leadership

Weber examined different kinds of leadership across human history. One of the oldest was 'charismatic leadership' but it is still with us today in our everyday lives. Other leaders are defined by inherited traditions or formal rules but charismatic leaders have a personality and behaviour to which others gravitate. They may never occupy any named position yet still hold sway over the way in which groups function. Even the most voluntary and consensual of groups can have one or more members who sit at the centre of interactions. I think we have all witnessed this in our own lives (for good or ill) and I can therefore never get too idealistic about anarchic political concepts. This may also be why Weber recognized the value of the state and what it can do (within limits) for humanity.