THE INTELLECTUAL HERITAGE

Presented as a report by J. B. Nangpuhan II (MPA Student) for the class (Organization and Society) of Dr. H. G. Kim at Chonnam National University, Korea on Sept. 27, 2010.

 

SUMMARY

(In my group, we have divided the chapter into two and I will be presenting pages 26-39)

MAX WEBER (1864-1920)

He is a German sociologist and best known to students of public administration for his analysis of rational bureaucracy which had a broad impact on the social sciences. Among the three writers whose works are examined in this chapter, Weber has clearly had the most direct impact on theories of public organization although his influence was felt fairly late in the development of the field. 


I.        Capitalism and the Protestant Ethic

Weber acknowledged that change could be propelled by other forces such as tradition or belief. This is contrary to Marx’s emphasis on the relationship between economic conditions and patterns of social change. Changing societies are not merely economic but also to the world of ideas and ideals. He argued that the belief in predestination was so disconcerting to followers of Calvin that they sought a kind of “loophole” in their destiny, a way of ensuring that they would be among the elect who enter the state of grace. In short, the Calvinist worked in order to ensure salvation (Calvinist Protestantism) . As a result of this loophole, there was an accumulation of capital and a broad establishment of the capitalist system. In terms of formal efficiency, the capitalist dependence on private ownership, managerial control of the means of production, and reliance on competitive pricing in the market were clearly at an advantage.

II.      Rationalization of Social Theory: The Notion of the Ideal Type

The rationalization of society lies at the heart of Weber’s analysis that human action, including human labor, is best seen as means to an end. This is based on his approach to the development of social theory that differentiates social science from natural science. The objectivity in the social sciences could be achieved through procedures designed to eliminate personal prejudice in the research process. Science can tell us what it is but it cannot tell us what it ought to be. Science can assess the likelihood that given actions will move us efficiently toward our objectives but it cannot say what those objectives should be. He recognized that values do play a part in social science since it influences social relationships and the way social scientist select significant topics. He defined sociology is a science concerning itself with the interpretive understanding of social action and thereby with a causal explanation of its course and consequences. The sociologist is interested in how interacting subjects constitute structures of meaning that in turn guide future actions. Weber’s notion of the “ideal type” can provide social scientist an objective analysis of the impact of social events on individuals and societies that will lead to the formulation of social understanding.

A.      Ideal-type Bureaucracy/ Pure-type Bureaucracy

Weber argued that every system of authority must establish and secure a belief in its legitimacy to be done in many different ways. He revealed three pure types of legitimate authority:

1.       Legal authority – based on a belief in the legality of certain patterns or rules and in the right of those in positions of legal authority to issue commands;

2.       Traditional authority – based on the belief in the importance of enduring traditions and those who rule within those traditions; and

3.       Charismatic authority – based on an emotional attachment or devotion to a specific individual.

In legal authority, it is exercised through a bureaucratic administrative staff which depends on the establishment of legal norms within a group and the agreement of members of the group to be bound by the legal system. Officials operate in a bureaucratic organization following legal authority using the criteria below:

1.       They are personally free and are subject to authority only with respect to their impersonal official obligations.

2.       They are organized in a clearly defined hierarchy of offices.

3.       Each office has a clearly defined sphere of competence in the legal sense.

4.       The office is filled by a free contractual relationship. Thus, in principle, there is free selection.

5.       Candidates are selected on the basis of technical qualifications rationally tested by examination, guaranteed by diplomas certifying technical training, or both. Successful candidates are appointed not elected.

6.       They are remunerated by fixed salaries in money with a right to pensions. Under certain circumstances, the employing authority, especially in private organizations, have a right to terminate the appointment taking into account the responsibility of the position and the requirements of the incumbent’s social status.

7.       The office is treated as the sole, or at least the primary, occupation of the incumbent.

8.       The office constitutes a career thus; promotion is based on seniority, achievement, or both and depends on the judgment of superiors.

9.       Officials work entirely separated from ownership of the means of administration and without appropriation of their positions.

10.   They are subject to strict and systematic discipline and control of the conduct of the office.

These criteria are most applicable to government agencies but also found in business organizations, voluntary organizations, and even religious institutions. The attractiveness of a bureaucratic organization appears to be the most efficient approach to controlling the work of large numbers of people in pursuit of given objectives. According to Weber, experience tends to universally show that the purely bureaucratic type of administration is, from a purely technical point of view, capable of attaining the highest degree of efficiency and is the most rational means of carrying out imperative control over human beings.

B.      Expansion of Bureaucracy

Weber saw the expansion of bureaucratic systems to all spheres of human activity as the single most important development in the modern world. Businesses, governments, churches, all seem to organize around the same principles emphasizing the exercise of authority through hierarchical structures. Socialist systems may even require a higher degree of bureaucratization to that of capitalist systems in order to provide a stable economic life. He argued that bureaucratic administration, from a formal and technical point of view, is always the most rational type for the need of mass administration today and it is completely indispensable.

However, Herbert Marcuse (1968, pp. 223-224) argued that Weber’s critical analysis ultimately turns into “apologetics” that are quite favorable to the extension of capitalist domination through bureaucratic mechanisms. He also argued that Weber sees the increasing rationalization of modern life as the “fate” of modern man that’s why it is inevitable. According to some analysts, Weber and Marx are entertaining the same question that there is an increasing limitation of the human spirit under conditions of rapidly expanding bureaucratic regulation.

Wolfgang J. Mommsen (1974), an observer more sympathetic to Weber compared the idea of Marx and Weber as both concerned with the inhuman consequences of modern industrial capitalism. Capitalism depended more or less on formal rationality in all spheres of social life. Thus, Weber envisaged that the further advance of capitalism would eventually result in the emergence of a “new iron cage of serfdom” in which the individual would no longer stand any chance at all. The only possible escape from the pattern of increasing social regulation is the hope of Weber that charismatic leaders might emerge in positions to control the otherwise enduring systems of bureaucratic administration.

SIGMUND FREUD (1856-1939)

He was the first to emphasize the notion of the unconscious in the pursuit of a healthier mental attitude. He also developed an understanding of the life of groups, organizations, and societies.

I.        Psychotherapy and Personality Theory

This theory is indicated in the relationship between the therapist and the patient. Freud developed a theory of personality development by understanding the mind and behavior of an individual. Freud argued that when an individual seeks certain pleasures or gratifications but that few of these wishes can be fulfilled, those unfulfilled wishes are repressed into the unconscious mind where they remain hidden and unrecognizable but capable of great influence over the individual’s development. Freud mentioned three forces: id, ego, and superego. Id is the source of psychic energy, the aspect of our being that seeks to reduce tension by means of the pleasure principle. Ego serves to mediate between the individual and the objective world obeying the reality principle. Superego comprises the internal representation of the values and ideals of the society, including matters of right and wrong.

Among these forces, the ego plays a mediating role, checking the primitive and impulsive tendencies of the id but also preventing the personality from being overwhelmed by moralistic considerations. The ego may respond to the object choices of the instincts, meaning both the specific thing required to satisfy a need and all the behaviors that might go into securing that object. In the central mechanism of repression, the ego may engage in displacement (varying the object choice by substituting a new choice for the original), projection (externalizing an internal wish or desire), reaction formation (replacing an object choice with its opposite), and fixation or regression (stopping development at a particular stage or regressing to an earlier stage). The repression of wishes cannot be fulfilled creates the greatest discomfort for the patient.

The role of the therapists is to trace the symptoms revealed in the outer world back to the repressions they represent in the inner world. Satisfactory resolution can occur in a number of ways. First, the patient may come to recognize that the wish should have been accepted from the beginning and actions should have been taken to seek its fulfillment or the wish should have been released more easily when it is inappropriate. Or second, the energy of the wish may be redirected toward a more creative end. The interpretation provided by the therapist is designed to restore a part of the individual’s repressed history in such a fashion that the patient takes corrective action.

II.      Understanding the Behavior and Impact of Group Psychology

Freud examined more closely the implications of his work on therapeutic role of psychoanalysis in understanding social groups and even the entire cultural systems. His work on group psychology noted that the behavior of the group is often quite at odds with the behavior one might expect from a collection of rational adults, appearing to be based more on childlike impulses. This is shown between the relationship of the group and its leader. Leaders often have their own ideas about the direction the work of the group should take but these ideas may not be at all consistent with the desires of the group’s members. In this case, the leader fails in the eyes of the group and thus earns their hatred. According to A.K. Rice (1965), followers depend on their leaders to identify their goal, to devise ways of reaching it, and to lead toward it; but if the leaders fail or falters, leaders earn the hatred of followers.

The development of social groups and social organizations, based on the “scientific myth” of Freud, having control to a part of the world around them means doing damage to that world first for which they assume a certain amount of guilt. Then as the leader of the group begins to speak for and be identified with the group, the group members can shift their own guilt to the leader. Then recognizing the evil of the leader and the guilt the leader bears, the group can only recoil against him or her, thus creating inevitable tension between the leader and the group. As this tension is repressed into the unconscious mind of the group, it creates patterns that are inexplicable on the surface but nonetheless control the group’s behavior.

Groups and organizations appear as much more significant to the personal and psychological development of the individual than might first appear. Individuals use groups and organizations not only to accomplish established ends but also to serve as direct sources of need gratification – to provide a sense of security. The organization is itself integral to the development of the person – a direct purveyor of influence and values, of hopes and aspirations, dreams and desires. The individual’s relationship to the group and ultimately the society itself is critical to an understanding of the human condition.

III.    Individual Autonomy and Cultural Constraints

Freud examined the impact of civilization on the possibilities of human satisfaction as illustrated in his Civilization and Its Discontents (1961). He argued that civilization implies constraint in which individuals give up a part of their own autonomy and submit to the restrictions of the group. This is because there is an attraction to the sense of security and solidarity that the culture provides. Freud said that a good part of the struggles of mankind center round the single task of finding an expedient accommodation – one, that brings happiness – between this claim of individual autonomy and the cultural claims of the group.

Freud believed that as long as we live and work together, we cannot escape the ambivalence of our relationship with our culture. We find the juxtapositions of love and hate, attraction and repulsion, an instinct towards life and death. We seek life through civilization and the unity and continuity it represents but we must also abide our instinct toward death. Civilization represents a massive struggle between the life instinct, Eros, and the death instinct, Thanatos – a struggle that can only lead to guilt and repression on the part of the individual. Our culture can only thwart our desires, limiting our freedom and independence. For us to grow as individuals requires that we act creatively to mold the world to our desires and ultimately transcend the limitations of that world. But creative expression of the individual personality is exactly our organizational society seems to fear the most.

What Can We Learn?

The works of Marx, Weber, and Freud may be derived certain insights that can enable us to develop a more comprehensive understanding of the role of public organizations in our lives. All three theorists see clearly the primary tasks of modern man as one of finding an effective relationship between the individual and the society. Specifically, they depict the individual as engaged in a struggle with the forces of organization in society, both public and private, due to the complexity and the consequent rationalization of society. Our personal and collective survival depends on our developing both a basic intelligence and a sense of compassion as we live and work in a society of large and complex organizations. Some compelling reasons why we want to develop such a perspective and acquire knowledge are the following:

1.       Controlling Our Environment

Controlling our physical or social environment is for our own advantage. Also, if we know how people will react to certain situations that we can change, we can begin to alter their behavior. Seeking knowledge for purposes of control means that we are most interested in instrumental statements – statements that suggest the proper means toward a given end. 

2.       Interpreting the Intentions of Others

We seek knowledge to understand and interpret the intentions of others. To understand what is happening in a situation, we must not only observe the behavior of the individual but also understand the motives or intentions that support the individual’s action. Behavior refers to what can be observed from the outside while action refers to what is intended by the individual. Seeking interpretive statements allow us to comment on the meaning and significance people place on their actions. Interpreting the behavior and action of an individual allow us to understand the individual’s own outlook on the world. Popular questions to achieve better interpretation are: what was the point? and; what was he or she trying to do?

3.       Freeing Ourselves from Limiting Perspectives

We also seek knowledge to free ourselves from patterns of thought and action that we have come to accept, perhaps depend on, even though these patterns do not reflect our true needs or interests. Knowledge of this type allows us to exceed the limitations that “reality” imposes on us and to see the opportunities that the future presents. Based on Ralph Hummel’s book (2008), we live in a society increasingly dominated by instrumental bureaucratic structures, whether in government, business, and elsewhere, we live out our lives constrained by the forces of rationality and instrumentalism. Thus, freedom and reason become increasingly difficult to obtain. Hummel argued that “bureaucracy leaves us speechless” as it destroys human language. However, critical knowledge allows us to broaden our perspectives, to see more accurately the conditions that constrain us, and in turn to explore possibilities for more completely and more fully expressing our own potential.

Conclusion

There are various reasons we might wish to acquire knowledge and various uses we might make of instrumental, interpretative, and critical studies. We learn from Marx, Weber, and Freud that appearances mask realities no less than realities mask appearances. We also learn that modern societies encourage us to view the world in instrumental terms and that to resist such a view is very difficult although very important. 

My Opinion

I believed that the theories of Karl Marx, Max Weber, and Sigmund Freud have great influence to the world we are living at present. Those theories affected the functions of the government, business establishments, and even the church sector. Marx’s view about the alienation and depersonalization of the workers present a perspective of an unfair organization which is being controlled by a few people (capitalism). That is why the spirit of communalism is appropriate to control capitalism. Max Weber’s view of the ideal-type bureaucracy is in fact being used by several governments, businesses, and other organizations for efficient administration. But excessive practice of legal authority will limit the freedom of expression to people in the practice of their profession. I then agree to Freud that the basis in formulating such regulations in a certain organization should include first the understanding of the mind, behavior, and the cultural background of the members in the organization to maximize efficiency in attaining organizational objectives.

Reference: Denhardt, R. B. (2011). Theories of Public Organization (6^th Ed.). Boston, MA 02210, USA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning. 20-39