3/19

imperative coordination-how to get others to do what you want them to do despite the fact that doing so might not be in their own best interest imperitave control-assure obediance to authority over long term, solution requires it be durable max weber-social order, discusses various ways to solve this coercion, ultimately based on apparatus of state social order rests on force, on violence or threat thereof (marx says this weber takes issue with it) weber- coercion tends to promote counter-coercion/resistance, likely coercion used as a response as well and drives violence up an escalating cycle system of coercion there is this escalation, several consequences for coercive appartus cost of coercion increases, expend increasing amount of budget/resources eventually state no longer able to finance own coercive apparatus-fiscal crisis of the state, more and more resources go into coercing population apparatus of surveillance, totalitarian states, nazi germany and stalin, totalitarian state can just increase taxes to finance this apparatus coercion and taxes two pillars for Marx more a state relies on violence/coercion alone, more likely to enter fiscal crisis when it can no longer sustain the costs, can eventually lead to a collapse of the state, totalitarian states not very stable in the long run, also have to redistribute revenue from other programs such as infrastructure and education which end up being underfinanced weber, needs something else besides coercion, also says work from coercion is limited coercion fails when labor becomes more and more complex/sophisticated and requires initiative on part of workers, the more skilled the labor becomes third reason to do with coercive apparatus itself, enforcement staff makes sure can carry out the orders from the top, something else is required to get enforcement staff to employ means of coercion legitimate authority more a state seen as a legitimate authority, less it needs to mobilize coercive apparatus, and less it has to do so more legit, mutually reinforces itself must be a modicum of voluntary submission to authority (for weber) follows orders bc believe ones issuing are entitled to do so legitimacy encourages certain degree of voluntary compliance historically first form of legitimate authority by weber is charismatic authority, historically oldest form of authority ex: original community of disciples around Jesus, however charisma is a value-neutral term, whether leader is

benevolent or not besides the point gandhi yet stalin, jesus yet hitler, doesnt matter if good or evil diff that makes diff is charismatic charismatic authority- leader has a special endowment, endowed with special or unusual gifts or talents, seen as someone to be worshipped or respected, seeks to embody qualities that ordinary humans do not have and cant aspire to aquire, seen as a chosen person usually attributed to special connections leader has to divine/sacred/supernatural, often worshipped as sacred or seen in close context with the divine charismatic leader in original form is a prophet, reveals word and will of God salvation of entire group seen as directly tied to charismatic revelation, divine authority that acts to assure that followers follow it rules through prophetic revelation, truth is revealed and truth is with which charismatic leader is seen in being in close contact, word of this higher authority worship of charismatic leader is like a proxy for divine they represent charisma limited and restricted to those to whom it makes a difference sometimes charisma doesnt travel very well between groups, potential scenario for dramatic and prolonged conflict, when two charismatic movements are in conflict if fighting for sacred much less willing to compromise, can parcel or divide land or money, can more easily comprimise on that, competing ideas on sacred not so formula behind genocide, conflict driven by emotional outrage and idea that enemy is someone that deserves to be eradicated 19th century genius closely related to charisma, both cases difficult to see how genius or charismatic leader do what they do, seems to be in touch with a creative force that others are not privy to part of mystery of genius is how they come up with what makes them special, 19th century romantic notion of genius is close to webers notion of charismatic authority surrounded by circle of confidants, brothers in arms closer to leader you are, more impressive charismatic force is, competition among followers to get close to leader paradox of charisma, more successful the movement becomes, more likely it is to disappear, larger the network gets more likely something but charisma is there to lead it/organizing principle, more likely it is to turn into something else mysterious things such as smoke and such suggest its something like charisma involved, however also bureaucratic organization/mechanisms as well, that election of pope is incompatible with charisma purely charismatic pope is directly from above/by god himself,

problem of size, studies of social movements find that in the beginning theyre charismatic and small, gather locally around charismatic figures, but once they grow they tend to turn into something like a political party charismatic movements are forms of life, they dont go home, practices the ethos of a communal life problem of succession, what happens if leader dies/is no longer available? usually the end of the charismatic movement hard to generalize charisma, does not travel very well, closely coupled to leader usually designate by touch/selecting own successor authority is held by a generational succession, like a dynasty/monarchy election, rational-legal authority traditional authority as well rational-legal authority ~ bureaucracy, bureaucratic authority, rational legal legitimacy, such as majority vote natural law, lawful in obvious and self-evident fashion, thats why it is termed natural law positve law- modern law, unless one talks about constitutional law, constitution is closest modern society gets to natural law positive comes from to posit, lawful because it is posited as such it is the law because it had been made law, according to weber a very modern idea, can make and unmake laws, very modern idea, all of that is impossible in natural law which is always valid and is not instituted by a particular legislature, it is not made it is found/discovered as long as positive law is made into law by the proper institutions following the proper procedures, anything can become law, and that is a modern idea legitimacy of procedures comes from further procedures, procedure after procedure after procedure, nothing rock solid underneath, very different from natural law unstable because of size, second problem is problem of succession which in most cases is not solved and the movement disbands does not mean charisma is absent, just that it only survives in special niches, usually at the top of a bureaucratic organization, like chief executives of corporations or president of state, element of charisma but its at the top of an org, other niche where it survives is cultural creativity/production, notion of the creative person, charisma escapes through culture and bureaucratic organization

3/21
ideal typology of legit authority 1 charismatic

2 traditional 3 legal-rational pages 324-386, parsons, weber II strict materialist, unilateral relationship in one direction under marx material superstructure, orthodox materialist unfair more like a humanist or the last romantic, definitely departs from rote orthodox philosophical materialism what is legal authority? how does it exert authority on members/coordinate activity? weber 328 parsons, legal rational, obediance owed to impersonal order, virtue of formal legality of commands, the first two relatively personal and to a person/divine traditional to a monarchy/family legal-rational impersonal, reverence for positive law opposed to natural law, sense that cartesian subject is autonomous and rational, vest faith in this autonomous rational individual, remove faith from that rule no one is above the law and everyone answerable to positive law, CEOs and presidents can be replaced, impeachment pure manifestation? through bureaucracy, page 333, where do we find a bureaucracy? DMV, little discretion legal authorit -> bureaucracy roles positive law hierarchy procedure is all the way down, nothing at the bottom is a cloud upon a cloud reference for positive law is an example of reification bureaucratic attitude is critical, how should someone conduct themselves? cool, calm, collected attitude- one of the distinctive marks of bureaucracy for weber from max weber 214 216 removes emotional/irrational elements, specific nature of bureaucracy sine ira ac studio beneficial in that its expedient and technically efficient, ought to eliminate bias, discrimination, nepotism, all facets hand in hand wih other forms of legitimate authority, weber is concerned with this dehumanizing element, runs perpendicular to other driving force in occidental force, autonomous, rational, sui-generous, self-directed individual able to determine own course in life bureaucracy given this organization and DOL three issues 1) philosophical anthropology given this ideal type, rarely find in pure forms, its a kind of metaphysics or ontology of human person, view of human nature, for this pure type bureaucracy to function in the way that weber has laid it out in theory here, humans are a particular kind of person, we are a rule following entity, if no room for discretion and if our conduct is ruled wholesale by the employee handbook then theres the assumption that were rule following individuals, traditional, instrumental and value rationality action dictated by rules? learn and store rules difficult situations turn back to these rules everything we do on a daily basis can be parsed out into a set of rules rennaisance man cant be achieved in this framework, there is this tension

2) explicable conduct belief that conduct theoretically broken down to explicit rules so that others may act in the same way tacit and explicit knowledge tacit knowledge is know-how explicit knowledge is know-what what we do is as much an art as a calculable process supplement that formal organization, its the informal organization, passed between organizational members provides meaning into these ways polanyi 3) tension-> iron cage endless regress of rule after rule after rule, way we know how to act cant be completely reduced to rules all around, he called that a shared form of life might consider that a learned, practiced background thats probably impossible to articulate we make connections by shared form of life coming of history, nazi party only pure type of bureaucratic organization weber is afraid of this iron cage is sense that we are controlled by, confined and reduced to source of news morality and productivity merged, productivity supersedes morality, we come to think that they are one in the same, that which is efficient is also ethical

3/28
hierarchy, simple problems of hierarchy is that as info travels upward gets changed, reinterpreted, repackaged as statistical observers, bureaucracies package and interpret info, not convey, therefore lose context and time as to background variables that influence info each layer in hierarchy will do something to that information, by the time it reaches the top it is very different from what it started out as many intermediate steps that do not simply transmit two things happen by time of top 1) information could be outdated/outmoded bc of time it takes 2) information leaders/decision-makers is information that has been interpreted/restructured so often that it is very different from original mode casts a skeptical eye on notion of leadership and power power is one of core concepts in social sciences tend to think power is property of particular persons, think of it as a charcteristics should think of power as a property of organizations and the relations between them

power is not something that individuals have, sociologically speaking not a property of persons but of organizations and networks very similar to an electric circuit, where is power in circuit? cant pinpoint particular node or component to distinguish power, but rather electricity is emergent humming of entire network, difficult to attribute power to individual loads in that network and rather it is the emergent network itself as far as powerful leaders concerned, two things 1) to attribute power to persons remains an attribution, even if granted power then granting still needs to be accomplished in some way powerful persons do not have power in and of themselves only have power in and so far as others attribute to them is an attribution and all attributions are simplifications to praise or blame a leader is usually a simplification, most of these leaders do not know or control, follows from notion that info transfers upward where leaders out of touch with organizations leaders do not know organizations in total nor can they control them in total, receive disproportionate amount of blame and praise most of what happens in orgs and decisions, do not bear any actual responsibility phenomenon of unintended consequences actions usually have consequences other than those intended by actor, results usually very different from what was intended, includes leadership what leaders decide eventual outcomes are due to a host of factors, to which leaders have limited control attribution and simplification-leaders one simplifies processes that lead to certain consequences, including those that are unintended and unanticipated what do leaders do? represent the organization to the outside, representation speak on behalf of organization do not determine or control day to day workings, especially when its complex with lots of horizontal and vertical orientation/integration, even more difficult to control in these cases function of rep, important imp distinction, between a formal and informal system roughly corresponds to distinction between frontstage and backstage formal system weber calls bureaucracy, rules and regulations codified, organization as apparatus, as a mechanism that operates according to formal standards and criteria, idea is that a bureaucracy is perfectly transparent one knows whos in charge, which office can do which things and which office belongs and which place in the chain of command bureaucracies and organizations are transparent bc in principle one can predict the outcomes if one knows formal structure, then one can in principle predict the outcome of bureaucratic decision making which makes organizations accountable, and thus their rationality according to weber weber defends technological/rationality, bureaucracies are rational-legal, does not mean what they do makes sense but rather it means that one knows what they will do given certain initial conditions idea of orgs as rational systems is the idea they follow a particular algorithm which governs their choices and aspects of data, as long as one knows this algorithm, one can predict what the org will do and is what makes them accountable and rational and transparent however, study of orgs after weber has become more and more critical of idea that all orgs are bureaucracies and

all parts of an org are equally bureaucratic after weber, soc of orgs has emphasized limits of bureaucratic formalism formal system has bureaucratic system of organization, such that even if you knew everything there is to know about it, you still would be far away from understanding what the organization actually does formal and informal system only loosely coupled everything known about formal system will still not know much of informal system informal system 1) groups 2)encounters 3)networks among them emerges whenever there is copresence presence of several persons in same place and time, ex: office which allows for copresence several copresent persons notice theyre being noticed by others encounter gets going, unavoidable, necessity, nothing you can do about it when they persist over time, then you get groups chain of repetetive encounters=group is a unit of solidarity, two solidarities/sets of loyalties may collide loyalty to organization and loyalty to group plenty of space for conflict between formal and informal system when one a member of group one expects one to behave in ways consistent with group provides members with certain identity, gets to know others on a private basis, common world inside of the group, if these groups then linked to other groups we get the informal system irving gosman calls the backstage social life is like theater, front and backstage, fronstage is where actors perform for audience and this is roughly public life and encounters and where one enacts a certain role vis a vis an audience, the backstage is where one retreats from public attention, roughly continuous with private life when one is not under observation and a way that may contradict action in public tension between the two, only loosely coupled because front-stage performances usually scripted (major difference), certain situations that have a standard kind of scripts in them and participants in situation enact scripts based on mutual expectations and public roles this front stage is all that can be perceived of org from a distance, all you can see is frontstage, just like what we see of strangers is at a distance and how they appear in their frontstage roles further an observer is removed from an organization, more that observer will tend to believe front stage and formal system is all there is, that means such an observer will be dependent on public self-presentations of these organizations in manuals, charters so on back-stage on other hand is harder to get access to, cannot be done by someone who is not at least a virtual member backstage not available to outsiders, only insiders, for a sociological observer requires to become a participant observer one cant see backstage from outside, must at least for a while become an insider/vitual insider has to see the org from inside as a participant observer and ethnographer org studies=ethnographical studies where they see organization on back stage which is usually unavailable front and back stage can come into conflict with each other each member/organizational worker has at least two roles, one according to the front stage and one back stage and there can be multiple backstages, can come into conflict when organizational expectations conflicts with

informal systems conflict of loyalty, of different roles, but also possibility of taking advantage of the informal system ex: task force when org is under stress from turbulence with rapidly changing environment, it will mobilize informal system, more the organization will rely on its informal system bc this system is much more flexible and able to organize and reorganize itself on the spot and therefore adapt to the environment formal system very time consuming, red tape we realize how time consuming it is to get the work done, if everything has to be made according to the book it is a very tedious time consuming effort organizations flatten out, is a sign that the organization is counting on and mobilizing informal system same applies to post baverian systems of organization in rationality (?) if we say that bureaucratic structure/formal systems, then rationality tends to surface on front stages of organization rationality is a front-stage phenomenon backstage much more messy and less-orderly backstage lights are dimmed and nothing is clear, everything much more ambiguous, leaders out of touch with where orgs going etc closer to backstage, more rationality decays rationality IS a variable, sometimes more of it sometimes less and there is more of it on the front stage rationality on front stage, especially when its being criticized, affected, audited, when it surfaces rational side just like how people do this is when they come up with rational reconstructions, tailored to a particular audience, explanations and account will be tailored to who is asking rational reconstructions will try to emphasize what you did made sense according to protocal, goals and information available at the time one of the best examples is an autobiography, when story of a life is told as if it followed a gradual and linear development decided in the beginning and the biography is the unfolding of a master plan, comes to the light of a single purpose and goal that is gradually being developed, teleological movement towards a final outcome, misconstruction as life usually has turns and twists, returns retwists, not a linear, progressive cumulative affair same here for organizations, rationality is a rational reconstruction of the org, on frontstages for the benefit of outside observers, who are led to believe that all is well and everything is going according to plan, rules and regulations being followed, offices making decisions entitled to do so and so on structure public appearances of orgs (rational reconstructions) orgs sometimes celebrate themselves like anniversaries, celebrate leaders, put themselves on frontstage and appear in a light of rationality and virtue, just like how nations celebrate themselves like their formation talk about an origin myth- the story of where the organization came from (origin myth from anth) told on these occasions where org celebrates itself and rituals it performs to congratulates itself front stages of orgs is where rationality surfaces rationlity is a variable not a constant, varies together with diff frontstage backstage, much more visible on frontstage, backstage much less orderly and improvised/much violates rules and regulations only loosely coupled but extent to which they are coupled is also a variable some cases formal system is a good predictor, other cases not when is it and when is it not? some orgs very formalistic, dont have much of a backstage orgs with low degree of task-uncertainty degree to which tasks are simple to complex, higher complexity, harder it is to predict outcome of a task, the

more work requires initiative and discretion on the part of workers, the less it is possible to control it from above ex: contrast two orgs, DMV and research lab diff? DMV has low task uncertainty, not all that much complexities, fairly bureaucratic formal system where rules and regulations determine how work is done and carried out vs research lab, high uncertainty, one cant know in advance what outcomes would be, if you knew outcomes no reason to do it, outcomes unpredictable and increases uncertainty of task, difficult to plan out research in great detail through protocol and methodological procedures, hard to do science by the textbook if that science is innovative, one cant follow established procedure but rather has to change that very procedure and method therefore research lab doesnt look very bureaucratic, absence of tall authority, one of most important covariates of bureaucracy is task uncertainty bureaucracy is a variable that covaries with task uncertainty, inversely related this also correlates with status inside and of the organizations vis a vis other orgs social status comes from two sources 1) status in the organization 2) status of the organization in org field rank of org, then rank within org generally high status related to task uncertainty more uncertain task is, higher status of workers, conversely true as well as one is then replacable higher ones status is, more uncertain a task one is likely to perform sociology of professions professionals high status workers typically because professions with highest status control critical areas of uncertainty important lesson about power: one important aspect is control over uncertainty bc control over uncertainty allows you to define these areas and make sense of them to others, creates a relation of dependence where others depend on you for your expertise in managing these uncertainties especially so when something happens to increase uncertainty such as accidents, disasters, turbulence in environment pushes those upwards in hierarchy who manage and control these areas of uncertainty this can change, organizations dynamic and areas of uncertainty can change ex: corp in new market, uncertainty and those that control this uncertainty/area will likely be advanced what we can say generally is that orgs will try and routinize and simplify as much as they can, rest that they cannot handle they will send upward in the hierarchy higher the office, more likely it is they deal with exceptions and surprises lower ranks, rank and file in org do repetetive work with predictable outcomes, such work is easy to supervise, one knows outcome and what is necessary to get the job done so just has to compare standard to actual performance and thats supervision holds true for relations between organizations as well, not just within organizations entire organizational field, in other words organizational fields are stratified and unequal, just as orgs within them unequal so too is the field itself ex: educational field, research universities would be at the top, universities engaged in research, bottom community colleges as no research being done there status depends on how close it is to critical areas of uncertainty low status to routine institutions

two variables that explains bureacracy 1) more bureaucratic if one observes front stages, then orgs appear bureaucratic and rational closer an observer moves towards an organization finally becoming participant observer, less bureaucracy is apparent and less processes inside organization seem ordered and rational and more uncertainty surfaces (frontstage vs backstage) 2) task uncertainty, more bureaucracy when work is routine and unskilled and repetitive/predictable, then org will look bureaucratic, conversely true as well as org pushes into areas of uncertainty as it cant be done by following protocal, can say therefore that all organizations have this duality between formal and informal, frontstage and backstage some have more of it than others, some orgs even try to eradicate backstages altogether, there are prisons, total institutions, sociology calls such institutions total engaged in a lot of surveillance, little chance to withdraw to backstage/privacy, little space for groups and encounters to form bc of physical separation and containment of bodies, the only way to stop or avoid informal system from springing to action prisons have informal systems and even economies by which info travels, only way to remove the informal system from forming is to remove backstage altogether and have a total institution with constant surveillance, such orgs very bureaucratic ex: monastery, such a total institution where there is no backstage, no way to retreat from org, lives ones life and all of it inside an organizational confinement, little informal system there as well ex:registrars office is much more bureaucratic than deans office why? bc registrar is a perfect statistical observer, everything reduced to quantity and reduced to mean, under those conditions work very repetetive and routine, looks like an automaton, doesnt matter whos the operator, coming and going will not be noticed much deans office more uncertain, work in various sectors differs as well and with it overall organizational structure this means organization can be a bureaucracy overall when you look at it as a whole, but inside of it it will have niches and pockets of informality with not much formal structure with not much formal authority and things handled in a more impersonal way bureaucracy and rationality are variables not constants

4/2
weber contributes in two areas 1) sociology of organization, bureaucracy that influences organizations and post bavarian sociology of organizations 2) field of stratification and inequality, developed multidimensional theory of stratification, fairly standard long lasting contribution as a classic implicit response to marx (theory) and his theory of stratification, which is based on property as a means of stratification, classes are stratification, defined by means and modes of production, as a result class structure looks fairly simple and dichotomous, dichotomous class structure of ruling class and others, dominance of ruling class primarily due to its economic status weber agrees with marx that this is an important dimension (economic) but says the actual picture is more complex, not just one dimension (class) but there are multiple dimensions weber first dimension is economic, following marx, classes primarily defined in economic terms status-contemp soc called cultural capital term popularized by french sociologist pierre bourdieu, one of the

most important contemporary incarnations of bavarian. status is a shared form of life, area of common practice and habits, includes such things as lifestyle of status group in society. most visibly when status groups fairly close off to each other, good ex: is indian caste system where fairly rigid markers of status. when groups closed and unified there are strict restrictions to interact with members of other status groups all the way to untouchables. strict ritual prohibitions to interaction of various status groups, for the most part status groups are closed, rules of endogamy, cant marry outside caste/status group. more these status groups seal each other off from one another, more there emerges a common culture/lifestyle and outlook and shared form of life that makes it possible for members to instantly recognize if they come from same status group. another ex of rigid demarcation is feudal medieval society with strict separation between aristocracy and serfs, little in direct interaction between the two, no upward or downward mobility, sealed off from each other. membs of status group culturally homogenous, distinctive style of life, not necessarily the same as economic stratification. there will be some overlap between first and second dimension but overlap isnt perfect, therell be some correlation but it wont be close to 1. can have low economic status in control of means of production but can be quite high in society, one of the best examples are intellectuals. can see in term itself capital, the overriding influence of marx. economic and cultural capital. just like economic capital one can invest in cultural capital and expect certain returns on that investment. one dimension is called formal cultural capital other informal. formal cultural capital usually measured by credentials and diplomas, educational certificates, value of credential depends on several factors- two important ones are degree to which market positions are coupled to credentials and the value of credential itself which is determined by status of institution that hands out such credentials, can be of various value. their conversion into economic capital is variable, sometimes with credential inflation it is worth less as everyone has it so not much competetive exclusivity of having such credentials. if supply of credentials increases then inflation and worth less. some worth less because institution issuing credentials have low status and as a result cant convert such a credential at the same rate from higher institution. formal cultural capital is an asset that can be measured and can be converted into other benefits including economic benefits. in this sense status is cultural capital. informal cultural capital- refers more to forms of life, what weber originally meant by status groups, a shared form of life. that includes for example manners of speaking, styles of dress, modes of self-presentation. all difficult to measure but people with similar amounts usually recognize commonalities, often prefer interactions/socialization with others who have similar amounts of informal cultural capital. but its difficult to measure, one attempt comes from sociolinguist bernstein, means he studied variations of language use according to social position in system of stratification. bernstein found two fundamentals speech codes, 1) restricted and 2) elaborate. restricted speech code is part of informal cultural capital, speech code is restricted if of low grammatical complexity and low linguistic diversity, vocab is fairly limited so one can be fine with stock repetoire of phrases that can be repeated again and again. speech pattern repetetive and monotonous, pool of expressions, certain turns of phrase that become expected from members of corresponding status groups. speech pattern that reflects low status, speak restricted code. elaborate code the opposite, fewer stock terms or phrase, more sophisticated ways of expression etc. spoken by members of high status groups, when people talk with each other on daily occasions and life, they instantly recognize which code is being spoken and that allows inferences of peoples status. together formal and informal social capital makes up informal social status. party but more properly translated as power- not easy to measure, said that sociological notion must be skeptical when it comes to identifying power as a property of persons. power is a property of networks within which people exist, particularly when unit of analysis is individual persons. way this is usually done is between distinction of order-giving and Order-taking and ofc theres an intermediate level as well, ideal distinction. order givers are usually those who identify with organization the most, get to speak on behalf of organization, front-stage leaders. enact to outsiders, to audiences and particularly critics. high degree of visibility throughout org, often celebrated as leaders and seen as collective symbols, so that org views itself collectively through org so leader acquires certain charismatic status, charisma of leader is in eye of beholder. leader represents org as a whole, charisma comes from fact leader is in center of attention. order taking is more backstage, backstage rituals and people who dont identify that much with org and often move from one org to another so they have no invested interest in it, often feel alienated from org. have to show deference to supervisor, usually retreat and withdrawal from public side of organization, leads to alienation from org

one needs to measure on all three dimensions, get a score sum them up and divide it by three and the outcome is the SES, socioeconomic status index, standard measure of status index typically person or household is unit of analysis and they are through surveys or other form asked to respond to questions trying to tap these three questions, usually how surveys of stratification accomplished. based on webers multidimensional theory of stratification. problem with approach is unit of analysis, if we measure only persons and households we forget the important fact that not only are people unequal by virtue of access to various amounts of economic and cultural resources, stratification can also be seen in the realtionship between organizations so that the unit of analysis would no longer be indiv or household but the org can in fact rank orgs themselves on basis of these three indices, orgs control various amts of econ capital, seen easily in corporate budgets, likewise diff orgs command various amts of cultural capital and prestige, some more highly ranked int erms of cultural authority and legitimacy, can be ranked on status index and also on power index ex: how close to state (imp measure of power in orgs) org fields structured in core periphary way circle in circle pic in core youd find ivy league then major public instutions then two year, comm colleges and other ult determination of status is how entire field ranks an organization, field observes itself and orgs in it and each other in terms of relative standing of organizational hierarchy could do the same for modern world system, in which case unit of analysis would now be states, form networks, core are states that rank highest, obviously military force important movements in and out, usually between adjacent strata, unlikely 1st -> 3rd world status, more likely b/w adjacent rings in the circle overall pattern fairly robust, changes in terms of which state and stratum but overall structure/differentiation remains the same, after breakup of soviet union, russia is now in the second level, movements gradual and not very drastic can do same analysis for art world, unit of analysis would be galleries, not ind. artists or patrons but galleries themselves, find exactly same pattern between core and periphary. core gallieries with highest cultural capital, prestigious, avant garde, outside lesser-known artists, local setting and not much attention same with academic journals, selective in core, robust social pattern, what durkheim called a social fact- a phenomenon that does not vary much regardless of what measures and indicators and units of analysis you consider, ex core periphary pattern as it doesnt matter if you look at edu, military, state, art or other organizations, robust social fact if it holds across wide variety of social phenomenon owe this indirectly to webers multidimensional theory of stratification when one measures in this way, finds that the ruling class is not homogenous, marx says so as its grounded in economics, turns out ruling classes are never homogenous, rather contain two factions, mentioned in light of german ideology and marxs critique of german idealism classes are themselves heterogenous as they consist of an economic sector (sector that is strong in economic capital) and a cultural sector or rather segment strong in cultural capital (intellectual workers who may not command much in economic resources but do have cultural capital formal and informal) bodeour, those high in cultural capital are ideological workers, formulate ideological mission and are engaged in ideological conflict with other classes

engage in work of rationalizing class interests ideologically bodeour of neoweberian, class structure of advanced society a box y labels ec and cc, x labels ruling/dominant class and dominated class each faction has a part high in economic and cultural capital cultural preferences can be determined by location in system, ex theatrical productions, music etc corresponds to objective position of someone in overall structure possibly to predict cultural taste, is a subjective reflex of objective class conditions, two fundamental tastes according to bordeour because of two classes taste of liberty- art for arts sake, no purpose outside itself, ex; avant garde theater, whereas realist theater that portrays social conditions would be preferred by taste of necessity which is much closer to material conditions. taste is not a subjective phenomenon according to bordeur, taste is an objective phenomenon, part of objective reproduction of class structure which reproduces itself through culture. social inequality produces cultural inequality and references(?) social inequality and that is how society continues, through social and cultural reproduction taste of necessity baes weird vegetables- beet, complex, beet+inverse beet class for weber much more complex reality than for marx, even increased if we consider there are also regional differences to this differentiation, also in gender, ethnicity etc. then becomes a tapestry rather than a dichotomy weber-tapestry, marx-dichotomy empirical result- classes seen as a whole very unlikely to mobilize in collective action because they are so heterogenous and several dimensions to it, factors that cut across distinctions much more likely that there are pockets (in this veg) in various ranks that mobilize for collective action but not class as a whole class in itself to class for itself is blocked or at least made very hard to accomplish and so for weber the conclusion is unlike marx for whom classes are historical actors, conflict of classes is engine of history. this block for weber means classes are unlikely to become historical actors and much more likely that there will be isolated and insolated pockets of collective mobilization inside of certain strata, but entire class as a whole unlikely to mobilize for collective action born out of empirical evidence, rarely see entire strata mobilizing but see these pockets. so we say historical and empirical record turn out in favor of webers multidimensional theory of strat as much more realistic picture of inequality in advanced modern societies

4/4
combine strands of webers sociology, next week durkheim central problem for weber: what is the nature of occidental modernity? occidental modernity unique and unprecedented, system of society and culture that is lacking in other historical epochs and geographical areas outside of the modern west weber pursues in several directions and have led to observation that there is not just one but 3 webers. throughout writings one can detect three distinct lines of approach towards central problem 1. funcationalist/rationalist weber: modernity a process of occidental rationalization. core institutions, the bureaucratic state, capitalist corporation and modern science. embody rational modes of action and authority. what makes institutions rational? not that they make sense in a common understanding, rationality is a purely technical term, uses it like an engineer or technician. system is rational when it meets two criteria, it is 1) effective and 2) efficient. therefore rationality of three core institutions consists in their transparency and accountability. in principle when one knows the formal rules and regulations that underlie the bureaucratic state, cap state and mod sci, when one knows formal

procedures embodied in three institutions then in principle possible to predict outcome/working. machine uses certain inputs to transform to certain outputs, machine algorithm- the inner working of a machine. workings of these machines characterized by formal and procedural mechanisms. operations of core institutions not grounded in ultimate divine authority, nor in natural order, nor on traditions and customs, nor on charismatic revelation and prophecy. such machines can be transported and transferred to other contexts, machine is protected from disturbances in environment. machine buffers itself through formal mechanical structure from turbulence. rationality comes from fact that one can structure bureaucratic organization and in-itself. machine indiff towards operators. procedural, formal and instrumental rationality holds these together. the scientific method is such a formal and technical system that specifies how to carry out research so that results are independent. Scientific method accounts for replicability, doesnt matter who, variations in time, locales, people irrelevant. as a result, impersonal mechanism of social control. most drastic difference between rationality and charisma. charisma- authority based on irreplacable person of charismatic leader, kind of structure not indifferent to time or context, entirely based on such, based on trust and faith of followers. charisma needs no justficiation. occidental rationality is instrumental formal technological rationality indifferent to history context and personnel. penetrates into all areas of social life. routinization of charisma, second outcome to the undermining of tradition and customs. social relations no longer grounded in superb order of divine creation, nor does it rest on sacredness of established tradition and practice, rather it is seen as the raw material for technological intervention and manipulation. this extends to three areas: 1) society, social relations. 2) nature 3)modern self. society nature and self as raw material for engineering, can be social engineering for social relations, technological engineering of nature through technological control of natural forces or through therapeutic intervention into the self. what is new about this weber argues is to see society self and nature as raw material. doesnt follow intrinsic plan/order or divine providence but for weber this leads to culture he calls disenchanted. process of occidental rationalization is disenchantment where only forces recognized are the objective forces that can be manipulated on the basis of social, technological and therapeutic engineering. social order and natural order seen not as necessary but contingent, another drastic difference to feudal period. everything has its predetermined place according to plan of creation. all societies outside or before modern west, ground order of self and nature in a higher transcendental metaphysical necessity that one must not interfere with. either from divine/supreme or from charismatic prophet, or from sancticity of established tradition. all cases, order is grounded in a higher authority that deems itself necessary. contingency is the opposite of necessity, something is contingent when there are other possibilities for it. what is might as well not be, what is might be different from what it is. when this is the case then an order is seen as contingent. occidental rationality+disenchantment=order contingent, groundless and not based on anything. means cosmos driven by mechanical forces like causality that can be unveiled by modern science, which is in the business of explaining and predicting events according to universal laws, tested through experiments. modern cosmos for weber, modern condition and world in which we live. according to rationalist weber all spheres of life subsumed under the realm of instrumental reason 2. conflict weber: influenced by karl marx modernity is the unleashing of conflictual forces that extend conflict beyond the realm of wealth, property and economics. multidimensional theory of stratification. not just economic but cultural resources, hence notion of cultural capital. marx restricts conflict to economic resources and property resources, weber its just one dimensions, ubiquitous as it can be in cultural resources. rationalist weber would say modern state most efficient means and large-scale societies, functionalist/rationalist weber would say explanation for modern state is a functional explanation, no other possible mode of organization that comes close to reaching modern bureaucratic states effectiveness. conflict weber: that very same state is a plurality of conflicting organizations, each of which tries to hijack and influence state for own purposes. state no longer has unified, instrumental, rational logic but rather state is the battlefield for heterogenous plurality of conflicting organizations, each of which tries to advance own interest by influencing the state. each org trying to influence state is itself a battlefield where various conflicting fores fight for control, org not a monolithic unity. system of horizontal and vertical conflicts, each division and office battles for control. 3. romantic weber: influenced by nietzche

metaphor of the iron cage. occidental modernity is bureaucratic caging. all aspects of life subject to administrative control. decisions on how to live ones life are no longer left to discretion of individuals themselves, rather caught inside intricate webs of bureaucratic domination out of which no escape is really possible. each aspect of human life subject to bureaucratic control and intervention, seen in case of bureaucracy as statistical observer, reduce persons to quantities to be classified and categorized. individual persons disappear as mere numbers as cases that can be summarized. very little hope of ever escaping iron cage of occidental modernity. skeptical unlike marx who was a utopian thinker, weber is not a utopian visionary. weber predicted socialist experiment in emerging soviet union would worsen iron cage instead of liberating. iron cage extends throughout lifecourse, basically a movement from organization to organization. all walks and concerns of life, bureaucracy determines life chances, everywhere individual person disappears and becomes anonmous and impersonal, attributes and properties that can be manipulated according to rules and regulations of instrumental reason. become object of technological manipulation as well. any attempt to escape from tech control is doomed to fail. pessimistic when it comes to living of individual life. can see thought if we take an example we will try and identify substance of each approach which approach in diff perspectives/contexts university rationalist: effective and efficient means of mass education, rather than privilaged status, large # of edu raw mat processed through sequence of educational system. in this system, persons appear as input, raw mat on which certain manipulations are being performed call teaching. then checked if manipulations successful through standardized credential, at the end diploma linked to employment. bureaucratization is a functional necessity, no other system conceivable. conflict: battleground of various interest groups, several such crosscutting philosophies. faculty students, sr and jr faculty, various departments, higher administration. not a unified monolith but rather a battlefield for various conflictual parties that has self-interested agenda. conflictual tapestry that decides what outcome will be. romantic: indiv. experience. wouldnt look at bureaucratic structure or conflictual parties, rather on indiv experience. within iron cage indiv person feels alienated, separated and disengaged from what is going on around them. learning not a matter of indiv self-fulfillment nor is it a matter of cultivation of character in days of aristocratic monopoly over education but rather a sequence of standardized protocals over which one has little control and to which one can make very little difference. larger systems get more alienating experience becomes. larger social system gets smaller diff is that each indiv can make to it. system of modern mass edu to romantic weber causes experience of alienation and withdrawal as persons recognize theyre only one piece in overall machinery. in essence replacable, experience of replacability that is in the foreground of the romantic webers metaphor of iron cage. which is the true or correct weber? should see in this distinction between the three webers three possible ways to approach modernity from three diff standpoints/perspectives. whether one focuses on overall totality of system or on experience of individuals within it. not true or false but rather appraoching phenomenon of occidental modernity in different ways and angles and to different ends as well. partition of three results from fact that hes subject to many influences, nietzche from romantic, marx from conflict

4/9
durkheim generally applicable

force distinct of observer our explanation doesnt change it existence and effect external to us and our subjective understanding similarly marriage coupling is a social fact, marriage modern occident all social facts contingent, not necessary the same way of gravity but exert necessary effect on us objective, not material facts, simply a force and objective force not a thing, not subjective, exists externally and outside the mind
Sacred is something that stands out, ecstatic, ek-stasis relationship between the bible and all other books, difference in kind, not like good and evil aligned on the same level, no contimuum that would compare ordinary books with the bible similar phenomenon having that trait, tribe sees rabbit or rock as quick and enduring, represents us as a group so adorn their religious institutions with these images process of reification, people don't realize image actually represents group itself to itself, comes to have a power unto its own taboo are those prohibitions that prevent one from attacking totem, collective symbol of the group

3020 April 9th Durkheim sociology is the science of social facts Metaphysical monist Unlike a dualist, a monist is someone who believes that there is only one world and everything can be approached and explained in the same way, thus no fundamental differences between nature and society. Nature and society accumulates to one world (one reality) reality of nature or reality of culture Therefore, for metaphysical monism, there is no methodological dualism (Max Weber nature is fundamentally different from society, there should be two different methods of studying the natural and the real world triggers a methodological dualism between science of nature and science of society) For Durkheim, there is no methodological dualism, one single method to study the single reality and this is the scientific method which physics follows Thus sociology is a social physics of social facts Such a social physics imitates and models itself after the physics that was born in as mechanical science Sociology should proceed just as physics does thus two main tasks are causal explanation and prediction To explain something means how it follows the universal covering law, therefore, sociology must discover the laws that hold the social universe together, once such laws are discovered, then sociology can causally explain the consequences by deducing the circumstances from this universal law. These causal explanations can be extrapolated into predictions. Sociology is the objective social physics of social facts What is a social fact for Durkheim A social fact is very similar to a natural fact (fact of nature) The fact of nature is determined by natural forces the equivalent to natural forces is social forces For Durkheim, society is a system of social forces that determine social facts (go hand-in-hand, facts follow from the forces from nature sciences proves by showing fundamental laws) Social fact resists the change (fact of nature one that you cannot simply ignore or circumvent, when you try to act against it the force or fact will resist such attempts Independent from its interpretations, the fact persists regardless of how its observed or interpreted. Fact is an independent reality (external), exists independent of accounts or interpretations, in that lies its objectivity, a fact is objective when it is independent of its explanation or of the being. A fact is therefore neutral and indifferent towards the subjective meanings. (Max Weber subjective meanings are central, to Weber, sociology is the science of subjective meanings.) Fact is very robust and enduring entity, it persists over time and over various contexts The fact is an objective external reality that exists regardless of how it is recognized or interpreted thus in short observer that is

independent When attempts are made to act against a fact, a social or natural force will resist and will reestablish themselves How are social facts to be studied, what are the ways to approach In the natural sciences, the main method is the experiment (the experiment introduces controlled variations.) Through experiments, the natural sciences varies its controls and see how results go hand in hand (advantage of that one who sets up the experiment can vary the conditions.) Social sciences experimental methods are very rare. Most social sciences are not experimental, except small group research For most part, social science introduce variation through non-experimental ways, such as the survey (variation through sampling), historical comparison (Max Webers method systematically comparing a phenomenon across various historical contexts.) Surveys and historical comparisons are two ways to introduce variation, but for the most part, experiments cannot be performed on society (why? 1. Moral/ethical reasons strict limits on human experiments 2. QUASI EXPERIMENT, naturally occuring difference, like one community has encountered a flood and see how communities have turned out, radical contingencies, whats key for durkheim is looking for this variation Phenomena to be study are too macro (cannot be put under experiments ex. Birth of capitalism, cannot be replicated)) Durkheim finds himself in a conflicting position 1. He wants sociology wants to be a social physics, a deductive monistic science, vs 2. Sociology does not have the methods physics have at its disposal for testing its theories This dilemma is solved by arguing that while it may be impractical or unethical to conduct experiments on societies, societies conduct such experiments on themselves. social order, a society that experiments itself with its society is during when the social order is violated/disturbed like a verb, continuously renews itself Forces of order are in perpetual conflict with disorder (This interplay is how societies perform experiments on their social order not laboratory) Quasi experiments experiments that occur naturally Reason why Durkheim pays a lot of attention to challenges towards social order (deviants, to suicide, anomy decay of social order) Durkheim has 3 major areas of concern (deviance, suicide, anomy) and all 3 challenge social order in some way or another and one can by observing how society reacts to these what holds society together. We learn how a system works when we take it apart and when we cannot take things apart like we do in the laboratory we see how they fall apart by themselves Then we study the repairs, the efforts made to fix that which has been broken up Durkheim repairs are responsibility of institutions of social control, the institutions of social control - designed to prevent disturbances or repair damage caused by these disturbances, This is very similar to the immune system goes into effect when it detects a disturbance mobilizes defenses towards possible break down thus institutions of social control is immune system (organismic analogy analogy between organism of a living being and society) Likewise just in an organism, society is comprised of several separate systems that each perform to contribute to the survival of the whole, a function which cannot be replaced by the other social differentiation (just like an organism is differentiated into organs of different functions, so are societies Institution - foundation of social order, social order rests upon foundations and this foundation is made up of institutions *Two kinds of institutions Durkheims idea of society in two layers, the surface layer, and the layer underneath Surface layer, layer of economic exchanges and contracts *superficial, social layer On the layer, society looks like a market where rational actors exchange resources and negotiate the terms through contracts like an ocean, layers underneath you dont see conscious acts the result of subconscious substratum inherit things from generation before with subtle changes, beneath the surface of an ocean, the id not really heritable though just a primal cultural capital, informal cultural capital-heritable forms of life, that which community shares with one another, facilitates cooperation This economic rationality is only the surface layer, underneath this surface, pre-contractual solidarity the contract is not what generates solidarity, there are contracts but they only belong to the surface level solidarity: sense of emotional togetherness, sense of a group (belonging, attachment, etc) under all other disciplines, there is a social dimension, social being used as an adjective durkheim has problem solving utility and allows sociology to expand and claim more territory for itself Non rational foundations of rationality - ** These two terms mark the position of the institution an institution belongs to the non-rational foundations (they go deep into the fabric of social life Strongest institutions are so deep that they become invisible most deeply ingrained in the texture of social life micro-macro interactions as might occur in the state, education, military-complex, handshake to state as an institution, all institutions are well-worn patterns of behavior, grooves on an asphalt road, so many times in the same place that keep you in line, notice when youre walking across the road, thats all institutions are they are self-evident, require no justification beyond existence, natural, taken for granted garfenkel breaching experiments through this area, exp: hey how are you doing? what do you mean... visceral reaction upsetting

sense of reality, sitting next to a stranger, backwards in an elevator, violates tacit ritualized patterns of interaction way to greet each other? he says handshakes pointless durkheims interest is in that pattern halen, humans born w/o instincts institutions substitute for instincts, constrain behavior and show us how to be in the world There are latent not manifest, tacit not explicit A strong institution comes naturally to its communitys actions, institution became a necessity (naturalness), they come naturally because no one can remember any other way as to how to do this To Weber institutions are captured by the words, customs and habits (so deeply ingrained that they are not even observed anymore An institutions persists because there is no need to agree (not because they always agree Ex) institution of common sense common sense like any institution is reluctant to observe itself Difficult to answer the question as to what is it, how long does it last and what is it described as regulates how we make sense of the world language another institution, only tool we have it, dont just talk about love, affects the way we talk about things the wave: both belief and rite, mental phenomenon and active ritualized method of it, compulsion to participate in the wave handshake, onus on the individual to participate ex: school, deeper belief manifest through educational system, force that compels us through which/manifest? need to learn, take education and knowledge for granted, inividual can better self through knowledge, knowledge is internalized, stored somewhere or the other, we can draw on in future situations hidden force that compels this institution to be made manifest religion isnt reducible to a reverence for supernatural, secular religiosity like through nationalism america has sacred objects, constitution For Durkheim, the strongest institution is the totem A totem is a sacred entity that stands for a community Whoever attacks the totem is attacking the community (totem is its sacred symbol good and evil opposite species of the same genus, Violation or attacks are unthinkable The force of the totem = force of the sacred, acting against the force of the totem is acting sacrilege A totem or institution that without which, the community would collapse, it would lose its sense of self, it would lose its identityprotected by taboo Reason why Durkheim studies tribal societies is to get clues about modernity, in studying tribal society, Durkheim hopes to find clues for the study of modern societies Totem & taboo lies within pre-contractual solidarity (non-rational foundations of rationality) Questions pertaining to how many are there, how influential, what are consequences In these taboos, the society reveals what is its most fundamental, most important of the society (Marx would say, look at its economic basis (look at how it organizes the economic means of economic production) To Durkheim the key to exploring society isnt its economic life but religious life, where religion is the sense of the sacred, Durkheim states that sacred can take various shapes and forms Sacred when society is unwilling to break the taboo (can be a god but doesnt have to be in most tribal societies but there is no creator notion) Thus the layer underneath the surface (pre contractual solidarity, non-rational foundations of rationality) is where the key lies

4/11
society becomes more and more differentiated whereas dol in small societies is very minor, so differentiation for durkheim is minor metaphysical dualism vs monalism, weber dualist, soc cannot be done in same way as natural science so metaphysical and methodological dualism, durkheim world is one and hence only one way to explain it and not a diff between sciences and society and sciences of nature class-economic capital status-cultural capital as well cultural capital-formal and informal, formal credentials, informal certain fundamental ways of expressing ones self including habits of speech, dress and taste status more broad class restricted

is a correlation between the two cultural explanation and cultural prediction main tasks of durkheim diff between anomie-worse than deviance, when theres deviance at least understood which norms deviance reacts or violates, in case of anomie that is closer to a complete breakdown in social order, when a society fails state and social failures social fact- (durkheim) social arrangement that has become so hardened and robust that circumventing it or acting against it will trigger serious repercussions, one cant derive them but theyre a reality sui generis, cant be reduced to individuals or individual actions, emergent reality sui-generis token is more than a sacred symbol, totem is seen as a life of its own, especially trial societies the distinction between symbols and things is not yet sharply drawn, so one can say that a totem is a reification but one has to at the same time realize that the distinction between words and things is not yet sharply established totem can be a concept, though a concept as a totem comes much later than a totem of tribal societies, if a certain term acquires such a special significance in a group that it becomes part of how that group lives its life and makes sense of itself and its world, then such a concept can indeed become totemic freedom, liberty, democracy and so on flag can become totemic, represents identity and aspirations as a nation, flag is on the one hand a material physical thing, a piece of cloth, so yes rationality as a construct has in fact become totemic for a group of economist that roughly fall under the heading of neoclassical, rational actors more or less sacrosanct taboo would be this assumption of rationality must not be abandoned or dropped taboo identified as such no longer as forceful as before when force weakens then totem is eroded, when no longer seen as mandatory or absolute, when needs justification and arguments, can happen when isolated group for a long time comes into contact with its outside, then it will realize that there are other possibilities of life and existence and that may cast a light on itself too, with that process of totemic erosion can commence priests become authoritative cast around the totem, represents the totem, case of the bible institution is collective practice and a certain way of doing things, a form of life, some form of life is so deeply ingrained in traditions and habits and customs of a group that they become blindspots institution rarely formalized, law is formalized, it is known how a law is being made, how it passes into law, the law can also be changed, the law is certainly a social fact because it resists action against it, but it is not an institution in the sense that an institution does not really need or require formal procedures to bring it into existence we consider ourselves and each other as persons, that is something that is fairly new, suggests that the notion of person has become institutionalized , if something is obvious and self-evident then it is clear in and of itself, then you can be sure you are in the vicinity of an institution then ruling class will have a facion richer and economic and social capital, matter of a proportion of capital, by and large has a lot of social and economic, but within the ruling class there is one faction which includes more ex: german idealists, philosophy of hegel in this model, intellectuals of a class advocate the class interests

taste of necessity is lower, where art is seen as a representation of life, whereas upper class, avant-garde, the abstract ruling class different icons and symbols of status than if you walk into a working class living room we tend to think of taste as smething private and personal, something upto us, bordieu shows theres a social dimension to it sacred-profane distinction for durkheim, all religions common, they do so in many diff ways so that one religion considers sacred what another will consider profane, but distinction itself is present in all religions and runs through religious practices regardless of which particular religion one is observing