1. The growth of the state and bureaucracy is sometimes
thought of the concrete expression of reason in social organization. How does
Weber elaborate on that? What is his attitude towards its growing importance?
2. Smith and others analyzed the rise of the industrial
economy. Weber suggests why that rise occurs in countries with the ‘Protestant
Ethic’ more strongly than others. Why does religion play a role in capitalism?
3. Weber makes a distinction between the ‘ethic of absolute
ends’ and the ‘ethic of responsibility’ and applies it to parties and political
actors and groups in Germany. What does he see as the difference (and how might
it apply in contemporary American politics?) Is the Marxism we talked about an
‘ethic of absolute ends’?
4. Weber makes a distinction between various types of
‘legitimacy’ (beliefs that justify a leader’s authority in the minds of the
led). They were ‘traditional’, ‘charismatic’ and ‘rational-legal’. How would
you apply this typology to contemporary leaders? Whom do you think Weber would
call ‘charismatic’ today.
5. Weber is often considered one of the first great modern
sociologists, as someone who looks as society ‘scientifically’, employing
empirical observation objectively. Yet he is also known as one of the
representatives of the pessimistic generation of intellectuals at the beginning
of the 20th Century, bemoaning the ‘disenchantment’ (Entzauberung) of society and politics.
Is there a contradiction?
application 1. What
would you say is “legitimacy of domination” the basis of the following of Abu
Bakr al-Baghdadi, the leader of Islamic State (ISIS) (or Lee Bollinger, or Prof
Chalmers) using the typology of Weber?
application 2. What does the incidence of terrorism (e.g. 9/11,
the truck in Berlin before Xmas, the Boston Marathon bombing) say about Weber’s
definition of a state (the claim to the monopoly of the legitimate use of force
within a territory)?
No comments:
Post a Comment