Download EMILE DURKHEIM 2 - e

Study Material for BA 2nd Semester (CBCS) Sociolology-2016
Unit 2nd
EMILE DURKHEIM (1858-1917)
Emile Durkheim is one of the classical theorists whose work has enduring
significance for sociological theorizing. He was a French sociologist and was both a social
theorist and a researcher.
He recognized the inevitability, indeed the desirability, of social change, but not at the
expense of a cohesive society supported by ethical norms. He was concerned with morality
because he believed that civilized society was, in his time, suffering from a state of deep
disturbance. The science of Sociology was the means, in his view, to discover the ways in
which modern society could become moral and harmonious. He is the first sociologist in
France to hold an academic post.
Durkheim defined Sociology as the science of institutions, of their genesis and of their
functioning. He noted that society in reality is sui generis— that is an objective-reality apart
from the individuals within it.
Durkheim also noted that institutions comprise of all the beliefs and all the modes of
conduct instituted by the collectively. In other words, institutions contain all the social facts
that Sociology studies.
SOCIAL FACTS
Durkheim defined social facts as collective “ways of acting, thinking and feeling, external
to the individual and endowed with the power of coercion, by reason of which they control
him”. Family, religion and law are some of the typical examples of social facts. These
institutions though created by the society in turn not only stand external to the
individuals but also control their behaviour.
Durkheim pointed out that in the fulfilment of obligations of brother, husband, or citizen,
the individuals perform duties and play roles that are defined externally and that
constraint his interpretation and fulfilment of those roles. It is the exteriority and the
constraint of social facts that make them visible to the sociologist. Because they are
independent of any individual. Social facts can only be explained in terms of other social
facts, not in terms of states of individual consciousness.
Durkheim argued that there are two ways of studying and explaining social facts .The first
method involves determining the causes of a social fact and seeking to explain its origin, e.g
variations in suicide rates in different societies, as highlighted by Durkheim in his theory of
suicide, are to be found in variations in the degree of integration of an individual in the
society. The second explanation involves the analysis of functions of a social fact in the
society, eg; its contribution to the general needs of the social system and its functions in
the establishment of social order.
DIVISION OF LABOR IN SOCIETY
Modern industrial society was regarded by many as responsible for excessive individualism,
which was thought to produce disruptive, even anarchic, effects. More specifically,
specialization and division of labour encouraged autonomous individualism, which in turn
threatened social harmony and cohesion. Durkheim believed that if public opinion
recognizes the rule of the division of labour, it is not without some anxiety and hesitation.
The study of The Division of Labour in society was Durkheim’s doctoral thesis and his earlier
work. Durkheim saw a number of problems arising from specialization in industrial society
but believed the promise of division of labour outweighed the social problems. Under the
division of labour, Durkheim has responded to the rise of industrial society but believed the
rise of Industrial society and has also highlighted the positive and negative sides to it.
Division of labor is not seen in economical terms but as a social process.
The central question in The Division of Labor in Society was, therefore, how can the
individual, while becoming more autonomous, depend ever more closely upon society?
Durkheim’s general answer was that social solidarity, or social cohesiveness and harmony
itself is transformed by the division of labor. He argues that industrial societies have moved
from mechanical form of solidarity to organic form of solidarity.
In societies marked by mechanical solidarity or solidarity based on similarities most people
are like each other with little or no specialization. The tasks to be performed are simple
which almost all members can perform equally well. Cohesiveness in such a society is based
upon the shared sense of likeness among the individuals. The individual is an
indistinguishable part of the collective whole.
whereas the organic form of solidarity is based on the interdependence created by modern
specialised division of labor. The term ‘organic’ refers to the functional inter-connectedness
of elements in society, similar to the way in which the parts of an organism are functionally
connected .With the increase in division of labor in modern societies, individuals are more
than ever functionally connected by their mutual needs.
Organic solidarity is characterized by the decline of collective conscience. The role of
collective conscience becomes specialized. Individual becomes more free while becoming
more aware of their independence. Labor is specialized whereby people have a great
variety of occupations
RELIGION
Durkheim’s main focus was on the social control of social structures over the
individual. In The Elementary Forms of Religious Life, Durkheim presented probably the
most influential interpretation of religion from a functionalist perspective. Religion is a nonmaterial, social fact and has what Durkheim calls a dynamogenic quality i.e; it has the
capacity not only to dominate individuals but also to elevate them above their ordinary
abilities and capacities.
Durkheim started with a study of totemism, a primitive and simple religion of the
Arunta, an aboriginal people of Australia. Durkheim believed that the simplest form of
religious life provides the purest examples of the essential elements of religious life.
Totemism is a system of beliefs and rites centered around a totem. The totem may be plant
or animal with which the members of a group or people feel strong yet mysterious
relationships. In other words totemism is a religious system in which certain things
particularly plants and animals come to be regarded as sacred. The totem cannot be
approached without proper rites and ceremonies. Persons worshipping a totem form a
group of their own and marry within it. Thus, the totem represents the spirit of the group as
well. On the basis of this fact Durkheim offers his theory that religion is the shield of society.
Sacred things are set apart and dealt with in ritualized ways. Most particularly, the
sacred thing is par excellence that which the profane should not touch, and cannot touch
with impunity. As a result, any individual moving from the Profane, or secular, world into
the world of the sacred must undergo purification rituals.
Durkheim noted that some Australian totems included the kangaroo, crow, sun, moon,
plants etc. The totem is a collective moral force that acts upon and is incorporated into the
individual consciousness of each clan member. Worship of the totem is therefore worship
of the clan.
Durkheim concluded that society is the source of all religions. Society through individuals
creates religion by defining certain phenomena as sacred and others as profane. The sacred
things are apart and dealt with in ritualized ways. It forms the essence of religion.
Durkheim’s sociology of religion is not limited to these general considerations, but his
major work on religion was devoted to a close and careful analysis of primitive religion,
more particularly of the date on primitive Australian forms of cults and beliefs. Durkheim
came to the conclusion that religion is nothing less than the worship of society. The
universal and eternal objective cause of religious sensations is society. Thus, the believer is
not deceived when he believes in the existence of a moral power upon which he depends
and from which he receives all that is best in him: this power exists, it is society.
SUICIDE
To Durkheim, men were creatures whose desires were unlimited. Unlike other
animals, they are not satiated when their biological needs are fulfilled. The more one has,
the more one wants, since satisfactions received only stimulate instead of filling needs. This
natural insatiability of the human animal that his desires can only be held in check by
external control that is, by societal control. Durkheim saw man as Homo Duplex—as body,
desire and appetite and also socialized personality. But man was specifically human only in
the latter capacity and he became fully human only in and through society. Society imposes
limits on human desires and constitutes a regulative force which must play the same role
for moral needs which the organism plays for physical needs. When social regulations break
down, the controlling influence of society on individual propensities is no longer effective
and individuals are left to their own devices. Such a state of affairs Durkheim calls anomie, a
term that refers to a condition of relative normlessness in a whole society or in some of its
component groups. Anomie does not refer to a state of mind, but to a property of the social
structure. It characterizes a condition in which Individual desires are no longer regulated by
common norms and where, as a consequence, individuals are left without moral guidance
in the pursuit of their goals.
Durkheim rejected extra social factors such as heredity, climate, mental alienation, racial
characteristics and imitation as causes of suicide. He was opposed to psychological
reductionism which explained everything in terms of psychological causation. Finally he
came to the conclusion that the cause of suicide can be studied with reference to the social
structure and its reunifying function which may actually aggravate or reduce suicide.
Durkheim identified four types of suicide:
(i)
Egoistic Suicide
It results from lack of integration of the individual into a social group. According to
Durkheim, egoism occurs because the tie binding the individual to others is slackened. In
this type, a person gives too much importance to his or her own self or ego, and is not
properly integrated with society. Thus, the rate of egoistic suicide increases as a result of
the weakening of the bonds of solidarity in the family, communities, religious or political
organizations etc. In this type of suicide the individual is isolated and potentially suicidal
because of the weakening of the social fabric. The cause of egoistic suicide is, therefore,
excessive individualism, which modern, industrial society tends to encourage. Egoistic
suicide may be characteristic of society as a whole or of particular, less integrated groups
within a society, such as urban dwellers, industrial workers, protestants, and unmarried
men.
(ii) Altruistic Suicide
It occurs when the individual is over-integrated with society or when an individual
scarifies his life for the sake of general good. In such a condition suicides occur for the cause
of society. Embracing death for the liberation of one’s country or dying in the battlefield
while defending the motherland, are the examples of altruistic suicide.
It is the opposite of egoistic suicide; it is the result of the excessive integration of the
individual into the group. Suicide occurs because the ego is not its own property.
(iii) Anomic Suicide
In circumstances in which social norms collapse, the individual finds himself in a
shape of personal disorganization. Durkheim calls this state ‘anomic’. This results from the
normlessness and deregulation of society. Durkheim attributed anomic suicide to unlimited
aspirations of individuals and the breakdown of regulatory norms.
According to Durkheim, it is man’s nature to be eternally dissatisfied and to have
unlimited desires. Unlike animals, there is nothing in man’s organic nor in his psychological
constitution which sets a limit on his desire for well being, comfort or luxury. But unlimited
desires are insatiable by definition and insatiability is rightly considered a sign of morbidity.
(iv)
Fatalistic Suicide
Durkheim identified a fourth type of suicide as well. Just as altruistic suicide was the
opposite of egoistic suicide, Durkheim found fatalistic suicide to be the opposite of anomic
suicide. His discussion of fatalistic suicide was very brief; however, he accorded it little
significance in the whole sociological account of the nature of suicide.
It occurs because of an excessive degree of regulation in an overly developed regime.
As an example of fatalistic suicide, Durkheim cites the suicide of slaves who seeing no
alternative to enslavement under the master take their own lives. In modern society,
fatalistic suicide occurred among very young husbands and childless married women, but
Durkheim insisted that in general it had little contemporary importance and examples are
hard to find.
Suicide
High
Altruistic
Social Integration
Low
Egoistic Suicide
High
Fatalistic Suicide
Low
Anomic Suicide
Regulation
Unit -III
KARL MARX
HISTORICAL MATERIALISM
The materialistic theory of history is the corner stone of Marx’s social and political
thinking and remains one of the major and influential works of Marx. Marx’s general ideas
about society are known as his theory of historical materialism. Materialism is the basis of
his sociological thought because, for Marx, material conditions or economic factors affect
the structure and development of society. His theory is that material conditions essentially
comprise technological means of production and human society is formed by the forces and
relations of production. Marx’s theory of society, i.e., historical materialism is historical. It is
historical because Marx has traced the evolution of human societies from one stage to
another-Asiatic, Ancient, Feudal and Capitalistic. It is called materialistic because Marx has
interpreted the evolution of societies in terms of their material or economic bases.
Materialism simply means that it is matter or material reality, which is the basis for any
change. The earlier view of Hegel was that ideas were the cause of change. Marx opposed
this view and instead argued that ideas were a result of objective reality, i.e., matter and
not vice versa.
To have clear understanding about historical materialism Marx has further described
the four modes of production. These are;
Asiatic Mode of Production: Refers to community-based production system where
ownership of land is communal and the existence of is expressed through the real or
imaginary unity of these communities. In this mode of production the division of labour is
rudimentary, there is no development of private property and the social structure is
derived from the family and kinship group. It is a type of classless society.
Ancient Mode of Production: Refers to a production system where the master has the right
of ownership over the slave and appropriates the products of his labour through servitude,
without allowing the slave to reproduce. This form of social organisation develops from an
association of tribes who form an organisation of city states. The productive system is
largely agrarian with rudimentary industry and a system of trade and commerce. In contrast
to tribal society, there is private property and a system of class relations develops from
property ownership.
Feudal Mode of Production: Refers to a production system where the lords appropriate
surplus labour from the serfs in the form of rent. This system of production is agricultural
based and the major means of producing food is concentrated on the land. The focal point
of production is the countryside, agriculture is widespread, there is no industry and town
life is not developed. Feudal mode of production is concerned with two groups of classes viz,
the feudal lords and the serfs. Serfs were deprived of property rights and obliged to
surrender their labour to fulfil their familial requirements. So the feudal lords exploited
their tenants or serfs.
Capitalist Mode of Production: Refers to a production system where the owners of means
of production, capitalists, extract surplus labour from the proletariats in the form of profits.
CLASS AND CLASS CONFLICT
The word ‘class’ originated from the Latin term ‘classis’ which refers to a group called
to arms, a division of the people. Marx’s sociology is, in fact, a sociology of the class
struggle. Marx has used the term social class throughout his works but explained it only in a
fragmented form. In Marxian sense, a social class is an aggregate of people who perform
the same function in the production process. These classes occupy different positions in the
economy. The position that a person occupies in the social organisation of production
determines the social class to which he/she belongs. Class struggle/conflict is the central to
Marx writings. The root cause of development of class struggle is the concept of surplus
value and the transformation of “class in itself” to “class for itself”.
According to Marx the mode of production or economic structure is the base or
foundation of society. Any change in this infrastructure will cause fundamental changes in
the superstructure and consequently in a society. The changes in the mode of production
are essentially changes in the forces of production and relations of production. In primitive
communal stage there was no surplus production and hence it had no inequality and
exploitation caused by the private ownership of means of production. The means of
production were common property of the community. With the development and
improvements in the forces of production there was increased productivity. This caused
private ownership of means of production and change in the relations of production. This
marked the end of primitive-communal system and thus began the long history of
inequality, exploitation and class conflict, coinciding with the emergence of slave-owning
society.
In the slave-owning society the class conflict between the slave owners and slaves
reached a peak causing a change in the mode of production from slavery to feudalistic
mode of production. Marx has said that the history of hitherto existing society is a history
of class struggle. This means that the entire history of society is studded with different
phases and periods of class struggle. This history of class struggle begins in the slave-owning
society and continues through feudal society where this class struggle is between classes of
the feudal lords and the landless agricultural labourers or serfs. Due to change in mode of
production and class struggle a new stage of society i.e., capitalism replaces the age-old
feudal system.
In the capitalistic mode of production the class antagonism acquires most acute
dimensions. The working class movement begins to concretise and reaches its peak.
Through a class conflict between the class of capitalists and the class of industrial labourers,
the capitalist system is replaced by socialism. This violent change has been termed as
revolution by Marx.
According to Hegel, each thesis has its antithesis. The thesis represents the positive
view and the antithesis represents the opposite or negative view. It means that each
statement of truth has its opposite statement. The antithesis or the opposite statement is
also true. In course of time, the thesis and antithesis are reconciled in the form of synthesis.
The synthesis is the composite view. As history progresses, the synthesis becomes a new
thesis. The new thesis then has an antithesis, with eventual prospect of turning into a
synthesis. And thus goes on the process of dialectics.
DIALECTICAL MATERIALISM
The word ‘dialectics’ refers to a method/process of intellectual discussion and debate.
It is a term of logic. According to the Greek philosopher Aristotle (384-322 B.C.), it referred
to the art of deputation by question and answer. Dialectical materialism evolved by Marx is
diametrically opposite to Hegelian dialectics. Hegel’s dialectics is mainly related to three
concepts; thesis, antithesis and synthesis. But Marx took the dialectical approach in a
completely different direction because Marx believed that the material world preceded the
world of ideas and this lead the foundation for a theory of historical development based on
human economic needs.
Dialectic materialism seeks to explain everything in terms of contradictions of matter.
Dialectical materialism provides abstract laws for natural and social change. Contrary to
metaphysics, it believes that in Nature, things are interconnected, interrelated and
determined by each other. It considers Nature as an integral whole. Dialectical materialism
declares that the law of reality is the law of change. There is constant transformation in
inorganic nature and human world. There is nothing eternally static. These transformations
are not gradual but there is a violent, revolutionary shift. Marx’s colleague Friedrich Engels
put forward the following three major laws of dialectical materialism.
a) The Law of Transition of Quantity into Quality
According to this law, process of change is not simple or gradual but it is a product of
quantitative advances which result in abstract qualitative changes at a particular moment
when mature conditions are present. There is never repetition of occurrences. This change
is always from lower to higher, simpler to complex, homogeneous to heterogeneous levels
of reality.
The problem with Hegel’s thinking, as Marx saw it, that ideas were ultimate reality
and always the focal point of historical process and change. On the other, Marx and Engel’s
believed that motion was the primary existence form of matter. Hence, it can be said that
Hegel’s dialectics was based on ideas while Marx dialectics was based on matters. That is
why, Hegel’s dialectical approach is known as dialectal idealism while Marx’s dialectics is
called dialectic materialism.
b) The Law of the Unity and Conflict of Opposites
The law of the unity and conflict of opposites is the core of dialectics. This law reveals
the sources, the real causes of the eternal motion and development of the material world.
It states that there are internal sides, tendencies, forces of an object or phenomena, which
are mutually exclusive but at the same time presuppose each other. The inseparable
interconnections of these opposite tendencies or contradictions is responsible for the unity
of opposites. This contradictoriness of objects and phenomena of the world is of a general,
universal nature.
c) The Law of Negation of the Negation
The term ‘negation’ was introduced in philosophy by Hegel but with an idealist
meaning. Hegel believed that the negation was present in the development of the idea, of
thought. Marx criticised Hegel and gave a materialistic interpretation of negation. He
showed that negation is an integral part of development of reality itself. Marx wrote, “In no
sphere can one undergo a development without negating one’s previous mode of
existence.”
This law of dialectic can be applied in the development and evolution of various
historical stages of human society; primitive communism, slavery, feudalism, capitalism and
socialism. This development shows that the succession of societies and their system of
social relations are interconnected and confirm the underlying process of development
described by the materialist dialectic and that is material expression to be found at the level
of economic existence.
Hence, according to the law of dialectics, contradictions will remain as this is the
basis of development. Thus we see how the three laws of dialectics, operate in Marx’s
interpretation of the history of society.
RELIGION
It is a fact that our life is surrounded by mysteries. Death, birth, creation and life itself is
a mystery. Religion tries to explain the mysteries which surround us. Religion helps human
beings in facing the uncertainties of everyday life. From the beginning of sociology,
sociologists have been interested in understanding man and religion. Religion stands as a
basis for our life and influences our words and deeds to a significant extent. It gives
meaning to our life, through myths, rituals and ceremonies. It gives us a sense of the past
and a goal for the future.
According to Marx, religion has a double-function. It acts as an ideology (political
ideas of a social class) of the ruling elite. It acts as an opiate of the masses. Much of Marx's
understanding of religion seems to have arisen out of his experience of Protestantism of
the Prussian state in the early nineteenth century. Marx was critical of the Prussian state
which promoted Protestantism, because it helped the state of justify the economic
inequalities. It can also be said that Protestantism acted as an ideology of the new class
which emerged at the break-down of feudalism. He famously refers to religion as the opiate
of the people, but it is worthwhile to look at the entire quotation:
“Religious distress is at the same time the expression of real distress and also the
protest against real distress. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a
heartless world, just as it is the spirit of spiritless conditions. It is the opium of the people”.
Marx believed that religion, like all ideology, reflects a truth but that this truth is
inverted. Because people cannot see that their distress and oppression are produced by the
capitalist system, their distress and oppression are given a religious form. Marx clearly says
that he is not against religion per se, but against a system that requires the illusions of
religion. This religious form is vulnerable to disruption and therefore is always liable to
become the basis of a revolutionary movement. We do indeed see that religious
movements have often been in the forefront of opposition to capitalism (for example,
liberation theology). Nevertheless, Marx felt that religion is especially amenable to
becoming the second form of ideology by portraying the injustice of capitalism as a test for
the faithful and pushing any revolutionary change off into the afterlife. In this way, the cry
of the oppressed is used to further oppression.
Unit-IV
MAX WEBER
SOCIAL ACTION
Max Weber conceived of sociology as a comprehensive science of social action.
Weber’s theory of social action is related to his methodological approach. Weber first
developed the theory of social action in Economy and society.
Weber’s theory of social action may be defined “as that body of social theory devised by
him in order to make valid judgements about the “inner states” of actors in their actions”.
By “inner states” Weber was referring to the capacity of the actor to choose between the
means and ends of action and to exercise rational choice.
The central theme of the theory of social action is that sociology is a science which
attempts the interpretative understanding of social action in order to arrive at a casual
explanation of its course and effects. Social action, for Weber can be defined as occurring
“when the acting individual’s attaches a subjective meaning to an act and when it takes
account the behaviour of others and is thereby oriented in its course”. In his action theory,
Weber’s clear intent was to focus on individuals and pat-terns and regularities of action and
not on the collectively. “Action in the sense of subjectively understandable orientation of
behavior exists only as the behavior of one or more individual human beings”
Weber identifies four distinct types of social action. They are;
i)
Zweckrational action in relation to a goal
An example of this is an engineer constructing a bridge, who uses certain materials in a
certain manner to achieve goal. This activity is directed towards obtaining that goal, namely,
completing the construction.
ii)
Wertrational action, or rational action in relation to a value
Here, one may give the example of a soldier laying down his life for the country. His action
is not directed towards attaining specific material goal like wealth. It is for the sake of
certain values like honour and patriotism.
iii)
Affective action
This kind of action results from the emotional state of mind of the actor. If someone is
teasing a girl in a bus, she may get so irritated that she may slap the offending person. She
has been provoked so much that she has reacted violently.
iv)
Traditional action
This is an action, which is guided by customs and longstanding beliefs, which become
second nature or habit. In traditional Indian society, doing ‘pranam’ or ‘namaskar’ to elders
is almost second nature needing no prompting
THE PROTESTANT ETHIC AND THE SPIRIT OF CAPITALISM
In Max Weber’s best-known work, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism,
he traced the impact of ascetic Protestantism—primarily Calvinism—on the rise of the spirit
of capitalism. Protestantism is a religion of protest. It arose in the sixteenth century in
Europe in the period known as the Reformation. Its founding fathers like Martin Luther and
John Calvin broke away from the Catholic Church. They felt that the Church had become
too immersed in doctrines and rituals. It had lost touch with the common people. Greed,
corruption and vice had gripped the Church. Priests had a life-style more suitable for
princes. Calvinism founded by the Frenchman John Calvin was one such sect. The followers
of Calvin in England were known as the Puritans. At the core of Calvinism is the belief that
certain persons are chosen or ‘elected’ by God to enter Heaven while the rest are damned.
The ‘chosen’ will reach Heaven no matter what they do on Earth.
Max Weber located a positive relationship between the Protestant ethics and the
spirit of capitalism. Western capitalism, according to Weber, assumed its shape because it
was supported by a certain belief system, namely, the “Protestant ethic”. Weber argued
that the Protestant ethic is closely associated with the spirit of capitalism. In his classic work
The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, Weber argued that the Protestant faith
supported the development of capitalism in the Western world.
Weber argued that these ideals were not as contradictory as they seemed. As the
Protestant faith developed, it included a belief in predestination—one’s salvation is
predetermined and a gift from God, not something earned. This state of affairs created
doubt and anxiety among believers, who searched for clues in the here and now about
whether they were among the chosen—called the “elect.” According to Weber, material
success was taken to be one clue that a person was among the elect and thus favoured by
God, which drove early Protestants to relentless work as a means of confirming (and
demonstrating) their salvation. As it happens, hard work and self-denial—the key features
of the Protestant ethic—lead not only to salvation but also to the accumulation of capital.
The religious ideas supported by the Protestant ethic therefore fit nicely with the needs of
capitalism.
According to Weber, these serious religionists stock-piled wealth, had an irresistible motive
to earn more (that is, eternal salvation), and were inclined to spend little on themselves,
leaving a larger share for investment and driving the growth of capitalism.
IDEAL TYPES: MEANING AND CHARACTERISTICS
The ideal type is one of Weber’s best-known contributions to contemporary
sociology. To Max Weber, the term ‘ideal type’ has a distinctive meaning and there are
certain underlying principles pertaining to its construction. According to New Websters
Dictionary (NWD 1985), ‘ideal’ is a ‘conception or a standard of something in its highest
perfection’. It refers to a mental image or conception rather than a material object.
Generally speaking, we may conceptualise ideal type as a kind, category, class or
group of objects, things or persons with particular character that seems to be the best
example of it. Weber used ideal type in a specific sense. To him, ideal type is a mental
construct, like a model, for the scrutiny and systematic characterisation of a concrete
situation. Indeed, he used ideal type as a methodological tool to understand and analyse
social reality.
Max Weber was particularly concerned with the problem of objectivity in social sciences.
Hence he used ideal type as a methodological tool that looks at reality objectively. It
scrutinises, classifies, systematises and defines social reality without subjective bias. The
ideal type has nothing to do with values. Its function, as a research tool, is for classification
and comparison. According to Max Weber
“The ideal typical concept will develop our skill in imputation in research. It is not a
description of reality but it aims to give definite means of expression to such a description”.
In other words, ideal types are concepts formulated on the basis of facts collected
carefully and analytically for empirical research. In this sense, ideal types are constructs or
concepts which are used as methodological devices or tools in our understanding and
analysis of any social problem.
Characteristics
Some important characteristics of ideal types are as:
i) Ideal types are not general or average types. That is, they are not defined by the
characteristics common to all phenomena or objects of study. They are formulated on the
basis of certain typical traits, which are essential to the construction of an ideal type
concept.
ii) Ideal types are not a presentation of total reality or they do not explain everything. They
exhibit partial conception of the whole.
iii) Ideal types are neither a description of any definite concept of reality, nor a hypothesis,
but they can aid both in description and explanation.
iv) In this sense we can say that ideal types are also related to the analytic conception of
causality, though not, in deterministic terms.
v) They also help in reaching to general propositions and in comparative analysis.
vi) Ideal types serve to guide empirical research, and are used in systematisation of data on
historical and social reality. The most important thing about ideal types is that they are
heuristic devices; they are to be useful and helpful in doing empirical research and in
understanding a specific aspect of the social world (or a “historical individual”).
BUREAUCRACY
The German sociologist, Max Weber (1956), provided the first detailed study of the
nature and origins of bureaucracy. Weber’s Model of Bureaucracy is an Ideal Type to which
he viewed as the most efficient— although not necessarily the most desirable—form of
social organization for the administration of work. He studied examples of bureaucracy
throughout history and noted the elements they had in common. Weber’s model of
bureaucracy is an ideal type, which is a simplified, exaggerated model of reality used to
illustrate a concept.
Weber pointed out that bureaucracy was the best administrative form for the
rational or efficient pursuit of organisational goals. Weber’s ideal type of bureaucracy
comprised various elements such as:
(a) high degree of specialisation and a clearly-defined division of labour, with tasks
distributed as official duties,
(b) hierarchical structure of authority with clearly circumscribed areas of command and
responsibility,
(c) establishment of a formal body of rules to govern the operation of the organisation and
administration based on written documents,
(d) impersonal relationships between organisational members and the clients,
(e) recruitment of personnel based on ability and technical knowledge,
(f) long term employment, promotion on the basis of seniority and merit,
(g) fixed salary and the separation of private and official income.