Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
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.