Weber Again

Max Weber Again

Sociology is a science, which is an interpretative understanding of social behavior used to explain causes, courses and effects of human interaction within a larger social context.

Social behaviors are the activities of individuals whose conduct is an interaction with others and are making decisions accordingly.

Meaning is derived from a specific actor in a specific historical situation.

Ideal type is the subjective meaning attributed to a hypothetical actor in a given category of actions in constituting a standard of a particular generalized model in wide-ranging category of surroundings. From this we can create an intellectual construction that is abstracted from experience in which individual elements are combined to form a whole that is conceptually independent of empirical factors or variables, but against which particular examples of the appropriate class found in life can be measured.

Ideal type is an agreed upon intellectual tool or paradigm used in Sociology and Anthropology drawn from logic, careful research of observable reality and generalization although not conforming to empirical reality in its details. The tool is useful because of the careful simplification and overstatement of its characteristics. It is a constructed intellectual tool used to approximate reality by selecting and emphasizing certain key elements.

Much of our understanding of others’ and their behavior comes from our ability to imagine their experiences, based upon similar experiences that the observer may have had. Through the use of subjective imagination, which is brought together with the careful objective gathering of facts, we develop a sympathetic understanding.

Sympathetic Understanding, which means not making guesses or making statements of others based on preexisting attitudes toward a people. Because all people have imagination they are able to develop empathy toward people whose lives are different from their own. Through rational understanding based on data, this Compassionate Insight is brought about by information about real people in their own cultural and historical setting, based on Facts not Fiction.  This is the origin of empathy. From this ethics is born.

The bases of a good paper are clarity, verifiable proof, and provide data that can be expanded upon by others.

Rational proof is empirical and logical.

Rational proof can be achieved within the context of meaning.

Lucidity, clarity, eloquence with verifiable proof that is logical in a clear intellectual grasp of the subject matter

Contingent upon reexamination of past studies, the validity of any study is the possibility duplicating the results in another examination, i.e. replicable.

Empathetic proof comes from participation directed by sympathetic emotional understanding. This is an expressively vital in creatively favorable approach allowing for participation in the everyday life of the subjects being studied. This leads to participant observation and sympathetic understanding

Sympathetic understanding or “verstehen” again a sociologist can reflect on the meaning an actor attaches to her actions. In doing so, the sociologist takes on the role or view of others by looking at the actor’s motives, how the individual perceives objects and others, considers these, and acts in response.

Verstehen is the empathic in the s historical sociological understanding of human action and behavior.

The ability to gain an understanding to gain a sympathetic understanding requires an understanding of a value system of the culture being studied.

To understand behavior, it is necessary to understand the cultural and historical context in which that set of behaviors takes place. To understand the reaction to those behaviors it is necessary to understand how the actors in the environment in which those behaviors are taking place perceive the behavior.

Behavior is all we can observe yet behavior is set in a cultural context, value-relevance as the foundation of historical knowledge.  This can lead to a rational empirical observation of behavior, becoming aware of the most important to balanced investigational scrutiny of performances of people in their everyday life.

Through direct empirical understanding with rational understanding we gain an explanatory understanding. From this understanding we can act more intelligently with fewer unforeseen consequences.

To develop a science of behavior our working explanations requires a grasp of the context of meaning used by the actors within the course of those actions within a historically specific social setting.

Within emotionally charged sets of behaviors the subjective meaning of that behavior exists within the relative social context of its meaning. Connotation is described and contained by this emotive milieu. 

This sets up an interpretative understanding of serving to interpret with an explanatory understanding of events.  Concrete individual cases with the use of fairly accurate approximation within a sociological mass analysis of the social setting we are looking at. This allows for a clarification a recurrently phenomenon as a formulated system. We can now investigate the origin, nature, and limits of human knowledge.

Any decisively noteworthy sufficient concentration of understanding must refer at some point to the subjective interpretation of a plausible direction of behavior whose elemental components parts organized into a coherent whole. These come together in familiar process of thoughts and feelings. Representing distinctive multifaceted sets of meaning.

Causal links are not flawlessly assured, what is certain are when strong correlations of events can be shown in which there exists a relationship of one event leading to another than when the process is reversed there is an argument for cause. If this can be established empirically, the interpretation is meaningful and adequate. This style of research can be used in formulating studies using statistical uniformities and eventually establishing sociological generalizations. Before this can be firmly set up the use of subjective understanding as a source for generating testable hypothesis is very helpful.

What is studied is behavior. Behavior is the behavior of individuals.  This is set in a larger social context of having meaning for actors engaged in those sets of actions. From careful observation the historical sociologist can group together of similar concepts and to be able to establish usable terminology. The sociologist can now arrange these collective concepts to be able to study modes of social behavior. These interpretations represent behavior that is meaningful to the actors. The study social behavior is guided by an understanding of underlying variables that influence their actions. 

Behavior that increases chances of survival leading to the continuation of cultural distinctiveness and continuous connected comprehensive collective of equivalent categories of social behavior that will have an effect on choices made by the actors. This has long-term consequences only if these sets of behavior become typical for any social group.

Generalizations are understandable if we look at social behavior as rational and related to some socially defined goals and values.  This is a methodological decision to avoid unverifiable and unobservable psychological speculation.  Defiant behavior has fundamental plausible and rational ancestry given the specific cultural worldview.

The behaviors we observed could by classified and categorized into useful tools we call laws, which are nothing other than statistical probabilities confirmed through empirical observation. These laws are artificial tool created by us to understand empirical regularities that we observed.

Laws are premises that are heuristic generalization, used in stimulating interest in further investigations stated as a suggestion emphasizing something to be true, characteristically observed flow of behavior. This behavior is understood as plausible quest of aspirations.

Theory a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena. Theory is a working model that organizes our concepts of the empirical world in a systematic way, to help us guide further research and analyze the findings. All theory is based upon empirical variable facts. The strength of a theory is the skill in which it arranges information that can explain complex information in manageable form. It must contain empirical statements that can be tested, and explain a complex interaction of observable phenomena. Theory is not a guess that is a hypothesis. Theory is a factual statement.

Julian Steward coined the term Cultural Ecology that is a continuation of his theory of Multi-linear Evolution. Multi-linear Evolution searches for regularities in cultural change. Cultural laws can be defined that explain these changes. Determinism is not the issue, but patterns of historical change follow patterns of an interaction between parts of a society and the larger environment. Cultural traditions have distinctive elements that can be studied in context. Similarities and differences between cultures are meaningful and change in meaningful ways. The evolution of recurrent forms, processes, and functions in different societies has similar explanations. Each society has its own specific historical movement through time. This prefaces cross-cultural studies.

Diachronic Anthropology starts with change as the only constant. Thus, cultural studies begin and end with the evolution and history of cultures and cross-cultural studies examines closely the effects of cultural change of surrounding cultures on the changes of a particular culture.

Historical Sociology focuses on changing social structures and how the complex of social institutions interacts in that process of change, and how long-term national and international trends affect that change.

The major thesis of Political Sociology is that politics cannot be isolated from other subsystems of a society. Political Anthropology has defined its interest in how power is put to use in a social and cultural environment. Power is defined as political influence to accomplish certain aims. Through cultural interpretation, the political culture defines certain goals as acceptable. Political systems operate within an historical setting. The ability to make and enforce decisions is the basis of power, and power is what Political Anthropologists study. Political Anthropology investigates the everyday experiences of people as they are shaped by their economic position in a particular society, and the world economy that molds most political issues.

Thus, given the historical evidence above, I am a Sociologist and Anthropologist as well as Historian, Economist, and Political Scientist.

Chapter Eight

Communal Relationships

Band level societies are small groups living with a simple technology by mostly foraging. Living below the carrying capacity of environment these people live well by limiting their population and moving around a lot. The bands form a fused settlement patterns for short periods of time, but for most of the year they split up into little domestic bands, because it is easier to forage in small family groups over the annual cycle. Because of size and ecological balance, there are no real permanent leaders it is strongly classless, because it is egalitarian.

Tribal level society is a somewhat more complex type of society than a band, but still with no enduring and powerful leadership. There is a change in their economy from foraging to gardening and sometimes involved with the raising of livestock. The groups are larger and more permanent. Smaller family organization is now embedded in clans, larger kin groups inherited mostly from one side of the family, but not always. Sometimes both sides are relatives but with a different relationship to the person involved.

Chiefdoms is represented by one clan has more authority. But rebellion is common because resources including military resources are equally distributed. With kingdoms power is nearly absolute. The people are disarmed; military are professionals who are loyal to the king. The king has divine characteristics.

Feudalism is halfway between chiefdom and kingdom.

Both have a class division, but within each class it is more equal. Customary connections are covered by “Shared Dealings”:

Gerontocracy is the rule by a sage. This is the most ridged of any traditional influence. By creating a form of public management in which an assembly of old men on the council of elders overlooks the community by achieving control.

Patrimonial is a complex of administrative staff all of which is under the tight control of the chief. These regimes are autocratic or oligarchic and exclude most of the people from power.

A benefice is a remuneration given out for assistances provided and then an installment is given for forthcoming services.

Trust is an inherited but formal contact that is reciprocal in which honor is the main apparent incentive.

Chapter Nine

Max Weber

Sociology is a science, which is an interpretative understanding of social behavior used to explain causes, courses and effects of human interaction within a larger social context.

Social behaviors are the activities of individuals whose conduct is an interaction with others and are making decisions accordingly.

Meaning is derived from a specific actor in a specific historical situation.

Ideal type is the subjective meaning attributed to a hypothetical actor in a given category of actions in constituting a standard of a particular generalized model in wide-ranging category of surroundings. From this we can create an intellectual construction that is abstracted from experience in which individual elements are combined to form a whole that is conceptually independent of empirical factors or variables, but against which particular examples of the appropriate class found in life can be measured.

Ideal type is an agreed upon intellectual tool or paradigm used in Sociology and Anthropology drawn from logic, careful research of observable reality and generalization although not conforming to empirical reality in its details. The tool is useful because of the careful simplification and overstatement of its characteristics. It is a constructed intellectual tool used to approximate reality by selecting and emphasizing certain key elements.

Much of our understanding of others’ and their behavior comes from our ability to imagine their experiences, based upon similar experiences that the observer may have had. Through the use of subjective imagination, which is brought together with the careful objective gathering of facts, we develop a sympathetic understanding.

Sympathetic Understanding, which means not making guesses or making statements of others based on preexisting attitudes toward a people. Because all people have imagination they are able to develop empathy toward people whose lives are different from their own. Through rational understanding based on data, this Compassionate Insight is brought about by information about real people in their own cultural and historical setting, based on Facts not Fiction.  This is the origin of empathy. From this ethics is born.

The bases of a good paper are clarity, verifiable proof, and provide data that can be expanded upon by others.

Rational proof is empirical and logical.

Rational proof can be achieved within the context of meaning.

Lucidity, clarity, eloquence with verifiable proof that is logical in a clear intellectual grasp of the subject matter

Contingent upon reexamination of past studies, the validity of any study is the possibility duplicating the results in another examination, i.e. replicable.

Empathetic proof comes from participation directed by sympathetic emotional understanding. This is an expressively vital in creatively favorable approach allowing for participation in the everyday life of the subjects being studied. This leads to participant observation and sympathetic understanding

Sympathetic understanding or “verstehen” again a sociologist can reflect on the meaning an actor attaches to her actions. In doing so, the sociologist takes on the role or view of others by looking at the actor’s motives, how the individual perceives objects and others, considers these, and acts in response.

Verstehen is the empathic in the s historical sociological understanding of human action and behavior.

The ability to gain an understanding to gain a sympathetic understanding requires an understanding of a value system of the culture being studied.

To understand behavior, it is necessary to understand the cultural and historical context in which that set of behaviors takes place. To understand the reaction to those behaviors it is necessary to understand how the actors in the environment in which those behaviors are taking place perceive the behavior.

Behavior is all we can observe yet behavior is set in a cultural context, value-relevance as the foundation of historical knowledge.  This can lead to a rational empirical observation of behavior, becoming aware of the most important to balanced investigational scrutiny of performances of people in their everyday life.

Through direct empirical understanding with rational understanding we gain an explanatory understanding. From this understanding we can act more intelligently with fewer unforeseen consequences.

To develop a science of behavior our working explanations requires a grasp of the context of meaning used by the actors within the course of those actions within a historically specific social setting.

Within emotionally charged sets of behaviors the subjective meaning of that behavior exists within the relative social context of its meaning. Connotation is described and contained by this emotive milieu. 

This sets up an interpretative understanding of serving to interpret with an explanatory understanding of events.  Concrete individual cases with the use of fairly accurate approximation within a sociological mass analysis of the social setting we are looking at. This allows for a clarification a recurrently phenomenon as a formulated system. We can now investigate the origin, nature, and limits of human knowledge.

Any decisively noteworthy sufficient concentration of understanding must refer at some point to the subjective interpretation of a plausible direction of behavior whose elemental components parts organized into a coherent whole. These come together in familiar process of thoughts and feelings. Representing distinctive multifaceted sets of meaning.

Causal links are not flawlessly assured, what is certain are when strong correlations of events can be shown in which there exists a relationship of one event leading to another than when the process is reversed there is an argument for cause. If this can be established empirically, the interpretation is meaningful and adequate. This style of research can be used in formulating studies using statistical uniformities and eventually establishing sociological generalizations. Before this can be firmly set up the use of subjective understanding as a source for generating testable hypothesis is very helpful.

What is studied is behavior. Behavior is the behavior of individuals.  This is set in a larger social context of having meaning for actors engaged in those sets of actions. From careful observation the historical sociologist can group together of similar concepts and to be able to establish usable terminology. The sociologist can now arrange these collective concepts to be able to study modes of social behavior. These interpretations represent behavior that is meaningful to the actors. The study social behavior is guided by an understanding of underlying variables that influence their actions. 

Behavior that increases chances of survival leading to the continuation of cultural distinctiveness and continuous connected comprehensive collective of equivalent categories of social behavior that will have an effect on choices made by the actors. This has long-term consequences only if these sets of behavior become typical for any social group.

Generalizations are understandable if we look at social behavior as rational and related to some socially defined goals and values.  This is a methodological decision to avoid unverifiable and unobservable psychological speculation.  Defiant behavior has fundamental plausible and rational ancestry given the specific cultural worldview.

The behaviors we observed could by classified and categorized into useful tools we call laws, which are nothing other than statistical probabilities confirmed through empirical observation. These laws are artificial tool created by us to understand empirical regularities that we observed.

Laws are premises that are heuristic generalization, used in stimulating interest in further investigations stated as a suggestion emphasizing something to be true, characteristically observed flow of behavior. This behavior is understood as plausible quest of aspirations.

Theory a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena. Theory is a working model that organizes our concepts of the empirical world in a systematic way, to help us guide further research and analyze the findings. All theory is based upon empirical variable facts. The strength of a theory is the skill in which it arranges information that can explain complex information in manageable form. It must contain empirical statements that can be tested, and explain a complex interaction of observable phenomena. Theory is not a guess that is a hypothesis. Theory is a factual statement.

Marx, Weber, Durkheim

Durkheim

On capitalism

1.     Individualism is not always freeing it can lead a feeling of failure in not achieving our goals, and isolation from others who care about us.

2.     Extreme optimism leads to unwarranted desires that is always a little or a lot unachievable leading to envy.

3.     In modern society there is no real agreed upon meaning in life.

4.     There is no real lasting community; we increasingly live our life among strangers. If life has lost all mystery, then it is cold and empty.

Max Weber

On Capitalism

1.     1. Capitalism begins as an ideology of dangerous individuality, if take taken to far individualism leads to despair.  There is no one to help us deal with our failures. We all feel guilty and often not sure why. To escape guilt we all need to work harder. Hard work is it’s own virtue. This virtue is no longer tied to giving back to the larger social good. Everybody gets what she deserves. Hollowness and gloom are normal emotions and a way of life. Life has now lost all mystery and became cold and empty.

2.     Around the world capitalism has failed to replace traditional society or come up with new answers. It has brought turmoil and loneliness and has disappointed people in the exchanges transported to customary civilizations or improvement made with contemporary solutions. Capitalism was a forced fit replacing families, clans, communities, and traditions with a professional bureaucracy of educated professionals.

3.    The evolution of authority from traditional authority. Largely tied to ancient traditional customs. Charismatic authority trusting in the enthusiasm for the special wholesomeness, valor and picture-perfect charm of an unreal superhero. Bureaucratic authority a professional and professional a governing administration that is attached to lawful judiciousness, legal legitimacy and a bureaucracy of trained civil servants with authority is the office not the officeholder. Fair but very cold.

Karl Marx was the father of Sociology. He was the Political Economist who studied economics in its' historical and social setting. From pre-capitalism through the evolution of capitalism and its' contradictions to its' possible end Marx studied historical sociology. He moved socialist writings from moral arguments to systematic historical studies. Most of sociology today is dealing with Marx pro - con updating, disproving or defending. 

Marx was trained in classical and Hegelian philosophy. Soon became involved in the socialist movement of his day. He met and talks to utopian socialists. Then carried out a serous study of economic theory of his day. He found all three wanting.  Traditionally the study of history lacked the grounding in sociology, which is the study of people rooted in already existing social institutions and groups.   Sociology lacked a complete understanding of political economy, the study of the relationship of individual to a larger market economy that evolves over time. Economics lacked training in cultural anthropology, the lives of people who interact through cultural understanding, culture being the some total of idea, shared believes, attitudes, values and understandings learned in a social setting. Anthropology often lacks an education into philosophy. Philosophy was missing a connection to all of the above. Marxist hoped to correct this by establishing a single interdisciplinary to connect all the dots.

Introduction to sociology is just to interest you in sociology. It takes years to truly study it. I presented you with four examples. None of these scholars would end up where they started out. By examining the historical data over the years they would all radically alter their positions. Marx started out as a philosopher trying to replace religion with a humanist philosophy. He abandoned that goal when he studied how large grape growers were forcing family farms out of business. He became a utopian socialist, but soon saw their plan would not work because they failed to study the economic history how capitalism came about at the end of the 1700’s. He created sociology.

Durkheim and Weber started out to disprove Marx. Weber was an economist at first trying to defend capitalism he soon became an opponent. He saw the rapid growth of bureaucracy as the necessary outcome of capitalism damage control only making things worse, but could be avoided because of destruction of capitalism. He was depressed.

Durkheim was the only real sociologist in the beginning he too started out defending capitalism and also ended up as an opponent. He thought however ever the destruction capitalism brought and the rise of the damage control bureaucracy it would at some point lead to a utopian socialist model founded upon us choosing our positions in society based upon two moral principle the greatest good for the greatest number of people, and the love for the tradition of the craft. Good pay would enter as a pleasant surprise.

Karl Polanyi also started out defending capitalism, but also became its’ greatest opponent. He dwarfs Marx, Weber and Durkheim. He also saw all traditional societies from the Old Stone Age till the 1830’s as some variety of socialism, some good and some evil. In the 1830’s there was a revolution creating something never existed before, capitalism. It cannibalizes destroys itself for the very start creating a need for bureaucracy. But we can turn the bureaucracy in a democratic humane even loving institution. Utopian socialist

Capitalism according to most authors changed bureaucracy from reward given by a king to his supporters and having only minimal control over everyday life in the economy to being all-inclusive presence. These two movements from more freedom in in everyday economic lives to protection from those very same decisions that undermine the stability of society as a whole is the examination that defines other discussions. Even the same individual often holds conflicting views according to Polanyi. The bureaucracy is both the solution and the problem according to Polanyi. He said we need to change the definition of social welfare from a handout to the lazy, to it is in all our best interest to look out for each other in our community, each doing her share. I believe if he were alive today he would say this begins with pre-k education.  True we will always have bums, but if we can lower their number to a tiny minority, we would need fewer regulations. Competition and desire for wealth will still be there, but becomes secondary to the desire to be socially responsible to the larger community. This is what he meant traditional economies and our economy in the future being embedded in a larger social ethic.

Today’s economic news is confusing to gain a better understanding of what is happening it may help to read Karl Polanyi.

Polanyi

To allow the market mechanism to be the sole director of the fate of human beings and their natural environment would result in the demolition of society. Our thesis is that the idea of a self-adjusting market implied a stark utopia. Such an institution could not exist for any length of time without annihilating the human and natural substance of society; it would have physically destroyed man and transformed his surroundings into a wilderness.

Polanyi the dean among economic historian of the last century truly is our mentor.

An unrestricted free market is a cruel myth. Each person acting for their own self interest is to permit market machinery to be the only administrator of the fate of this planet with all humanity and the global environment which would lead to the total annihilation of civilization and the world. Because a self-regulating market economy suggests an unambiguous fantasy such an economy begins falling apart from its inception requiring damage control i.e. regulations.  These controls are without any long-term arrangement or course. “Such an institution could not exist for any length of time without annihilating the human and natural substance of society; it would have physically destroyed man and transformed his surroundings into a wilderness.”  Boom and bust surviving from crisis to crisis is the illogic that is the lie we live by.

An ethical economy is embedded on social responsibility not unobstructed greed. Leading a criminal oligarchy at best or economic collapse at worst. Democracy is founded upon freedom created on empathy, societal concern and solidarity. Not a legalized version of organized crime.

Bureaucracy

Weber outlines the rational legal authority as having generalized rules that are logically consistent and defining the limits of organization and authority’s jurisdiction. The ideal type and goal is to have rules that are universal, impartial and impersonal. All individuals integrated by these systems are covered by these rules.

To begin with rational legal authority, expertise exists within the defined limits of the office. Is in turn delineated by the sphere of competence as described by the job description that sets the criteria for performance evaluation. Powers are limited to a sphere of competence within a range of talent often learned. The office itself defines this sphere of competence. This area of capability being well defined by the agency in writing and a matter of public record is a subject of open documentation to the general public. Outside of that office the office holder is a private citizen.

Property of the office holder, working within that office belongs to that specific office and not the office holder. Administrative staffs are trained professionals forming a bureaucratic structure. Within each office having delaminated powers separate the office holder’s authority in the professional capacity of that office from her private life as a citizen. Salaries are fixed and are a matter of public record. Lines of authority are carefully defined separating one office from another. Each of the related offices is under the authority of the office just above it. Fitness is determined by technical competence based upon objective criteria. Formal education is a condition for eligibility.  The above is an ideal type, and in reality never fits perfectly. But performance evaluations, public records, written and well-defined job descriptions are in place to approximate the ideal with the real.

The Methodology Of The Social Sciences Max Weber vs., Production and Distribution Marx:

This Marxist debate with Weber

Weber looks at the protestant ascetic anti-worldly ethic. Tensions between the ideal and the real are central. This leads to an active mastery over the material world. They are always looking for the kingdom of God on Earth.

 Out of this protestant cultural asceticism is the replacement of rationality. Reason is used to devalue tradition. Each part is rationally integrated into a more efficient whole. All people are then judged by the same standard. In bourgeois society it is commonly believed everyone gets what she deserve. 

Rational vs. Critical Methods

Value judgment of our research topics and conclusions cannot be avoided. If this comes ethical concerns then these judgments should be recognized and admitted too. In doing so the logical, empirical objective research methods cannot be confused with the ethical implications derived from a set of values.

Rational vs. critical methods center on what is value free? Value judgment of our research topics and conclusions cannot be avoided. If this comes to ethical concerns then these judgment should be recognized and processed.

In doing so the logical, empirical, objective research methods cannot be confused with implications derived from an established set of core values. The rational, observed, impartial approaches can provide a bases for the reasons for doing the research, but the reason as the chief source for testable knowledge, founded upon experiential, unbiased investigative approaches by themselves will not alter the concluding outcomes of those core values. They strengthen the argument supported by those same essential ideals.

Values judgments cannot be allowed to alter the facts derive from our research. The set of facts uncovered will mean something different to the reader with a different set of values. That does not mean value free sociology is not fact both impossible and immoral according to my set of principles, but the research itself must be free from partisan tampering. 

For the sake of keeping on task intellectual honesty must be founded upon thoughtful investigation and rational judgment. With serious research and logical deduction our conclusions can be defended. Empirical and historical data are central because anyone can have access to those sources. Considered by how well it measures the records.

When conclusions also reflect ethical and practical interpretations, alternative conclusions should be welcome as on intellectual honesty. At which time conclusions are to be judged by how much better or not they fit the data. Subjectivity and objectivity are not only, not in conflict they supplement each other. Their opposition is polemical and neutral and weighted contrast is insincere effort to hide a polemic. 

Skilled workmanship of the researcher must deal with observations that can be replicated, even by opponents. From there the scholar can refute the opponents. Sound opinions reflect sound objective data and complete commonsense influences based upon honorable ethical thought.

The impartial facts and the distinctive actions are best served by intellectual honesty that separates evidences from what the material means. The debates that follow require we clean up our act. This requires we become aware of the importance of using objective honest data to support our moral position.

Ethical concerns are unavoidable. People should closely examine their own conscience. Predictions are in part wish fulfillment. But, the research must be replicable even by those researchers who disagree with our moral standing. We must remember that while facts speak for themselves, others may hear the voice of prophecy differently. The values of the professor should be presented as the principles of the professor. It wrong to hide those value and wrong to deny those values with the mask of objectively. Personal judgment grounded in impartial facts makes any argument stronger. But, opinions still must be separated from impartial evidences reinforcing those sentiments.

What is always wrong is truth is a concession between disagreeing sentiments.

Truth falls somewhere in the middle may be right or it may be wrong. That position too must be tested. However, we can all learn by probing clashing views. Even the position of our fiercest opponents can teach us something if for no other reason we can prove them wrong.

Science works hard to achieve valuable results that are reasonably appropriate, truthful and noteworthy. The subjective enters into the research, but must be presented as something separate from the objective and empirical proofs gathered to support the position. 

Looking at the discussions drawn from underlying testing that endeavors to determine key incentives of social activity and the discussion of these contrasting appraisals need to be maintained as distinct from the entirely observed discoveries when presenting our professional papers. Data, core values of research, and conclusions will need to be presented in separate statements.

Opposing when debating often learn from each other, if only to show where an opposing view is wrong. The empirical data in these debates need to be open to all. Even the relative importance of different data itself may be debated.

Value free research maybe unattainable, but the empirical data must be objectively presented. This allows the values attached to the ethical views of the researcher to become a meaningful part of the discourse.  Grounding conclusions in objective facts is a minimum. This does not that conclusions are objective they are not. Finally not only is value free unfeasible it is also dishonest. But, data collections and test our hypothesis must be open and objective.

Our values cannot be proven empirically. But, to apply actions based on those values can be strengthened by careful analysis is only strengthened by objectivity. Yet this is just the beginning. After that a thorough rational line of reasoning needs a step-by-step careful conclusion is drawn from expected proposals based agreed upon statements of the position held to be correct.

Our values cannot be proven empirically. But, to apply actions based upon those values can be strengthened by careful empirical examination, and vigilant impartial examination. By objective analysis our position is strengthened.

Even desperation of objective research from its use in our ethical commitment in our social actions to improve the world cannot guarantee agreed upon solutions. Minimum programs often conflict with final goals. To compromise for a resolution to a problem on the minimum program requires compromise with others who have a vision of long-term goals different than our own. Even simple results require us to work with our opponents on shared goals or hold out for more important aims. The support of collective bargaining and the backing of union contracts are stepping stones to further actions. This can be a step towards socialism and worker self-management for the employees. The owners see the same thing as the stabilization of capitalism.

Ethics are usually framed in away that not only conflicts with alternative ethical views, but most ethics in internal disagreement with its own inside parts. Resolutions of these inner inconsistencies create new conflicts. Individual rights and social solidarity work together, but are also in conflict with each other. The struggle is the movement. This resolution is part of the effort in the movement.

Both the diminutive objectives and final foresight are entrenched in a meta-ethic. The minutest ends and eventual dream being embedded in the landscape of the entire effort the two are forever intertwined. Both ends, of social action are guided by morals are to be grounded in impartial facts and vigilant accurate scrutiny. Conceptualize clarification of strict proposals of any set of truthful standards in openly connected and functional reserves of our social actions.

People willing to work for proximate objectives and to conciliation to get there are often accused of unscrupulousness if not opportunism. Thus, is beyond the dominion of suitability. Struggling with endurance in perilous and grim situations by others is seen as being outside the province of correctness. Both criticisms are of course silly. The one supports the other. Both work together and tied closely to objective empirical research.

In almost every decision we make within the battle for public justice environs, emotions, ethical principles, interpretation of data, sub-conscious attitudes, indirect outlooks, mishaps impregnate and interpenetrate to guide our actions. But, the insignificance of most people’s repetitious day-by-day participations make authenticity of these persons unaware the noteworthy operation of conflicting incompatible standards that influence their disparate lives. Relative viewpoints uniting conflicting performances are interconnected of worth and usefulness. Though it may seem illogical the disagreement coming from these may make behavior seem imprudent, the amalgamation of the proposition and opposition create a new reality.

Partisan actions are guided by aims that are seemly honorable but with passable realistic clarifications with duplicitous influences. With crucial unavoidable consequences, leading to frequent predictable effects. Realistic results that could be and should be by means of observation shown are overlooked because of opinionated political beliefs.

Explanation and clarification of concrete of practical empirical facts in a way that objectively that encompasses and not compromises our goals we need plausible scrutiny to begin with. Reason and experiential reflection of interpretation of implications working with multiple sources of evidence are shared to obtain a particular reading of probable conclusions. In other words, logic and empirical observation are how deduction casual relations lead to inductive reasoning of possible outcomes. Each possible outcome will require positive action of real people. Each consequence carries with it many possible unexpected and unwelcome repercussions. This hopefully will lead to new research and evaluations and a change of strategy.

Sociologist will look for the subjective interpretation of the meaning in the concrete experiences and then average meaning based upon many experiences and among many individuals in which the experiences are roughly similar.

Hypothetical situation is the ideal type of things or ideas with corresponding theoretical experiences.

Sympathetic understanding is also known as Verstehen the understanding, in which the action is appreciated from the actor's point of view. This can offer clarity of underlying justification for social actions with knowledge of supportable civil contribution of the researcher and informant.

Max Weber

Sociology is a science, which is an interpretative understanding of social behavior used to explain causes, courses and effects of human interaction within a larger social context.

Social behaviors are the activities of individuals whose conduct is an interaction with others and are making decisions accordingly.

Meaning is derived from a specific actor in a specific historical situation.

Ideal type is the subjective meaning attributed to a hypothetical actor in a given category of actions in constituting a standard of a particular generalized model in wide-ranging category of surroundings. From this we can create an intellectual construction that is abstracted from experience in which individual elements are combined to form a whole that is conceptually independent of empirical factors or variables, but against which particular examples of the appropriate class found in life can be measured.

Ideal type is an agreed upon intellectual tool or paradigm used in Sociology and Anthropology drawn from logic, careful research of observable reality and generalization although not conforming to empirical reality in its details. The tool is useful because of the careful simplification and overstatement of its characteristics. It is a constructed intellectual tool used to approximate reality by selecting and emphasizing certain key elements.

Much of our understanding of others’ and their behavior comes from our ability to imagine their experiences, based upon similar experiences that the observer may have had. Through the use of subjective imagination, which is brought together with the careful objective gathering of facts, we develop a sympathetic understanding.

Sympathetic Understanding, which means not making guesses or making statements of others based on preexisting attitudes toward a people. Because all people have imagination they are able to develop empathy toward people whose lives are different from their own. Through rational understanding based on data, this Compassionate Insight is brought about by information about real people in their own cultural and historical setting, based on Facts not Fiction.  This is the origin of empathy. From this ethics is born.

The bases of a good paper are clarity, verifiable proof, and provide data that can be expanded upon by others.

Rational proof is empirical and logical.

Rational proof can be achieved within the context of meaning.

Lucidity, clarity, eloquence with verifiable proof that is logical in a clear intellectual grasp of the subject matter

Contingent upon reexamination of past studies, the validity of any study is the possibility duplicating the results in another examination, i.e. replicable.

Empathetic proof comes from participation directed by sympathetic emotional understanding. This is an expressively vital in creatively favorable approach allowing for participation in the everyday life of the subjects being studied. This leads to participant observation and sympathetic understanding

Sympathetic understanding or “verstehen” again a sociologist can reflect on the meaning an actor attaches to her actions. In doing so, the sociologist takes on the role or view of others by looking at the actor’s motives, how the individual perceives objects and others, considers these, and acts in response.

Verstehen is the empathic in the s historical sociological understanding of human action and behavior.

The ability to gain an understanding to gain a sympathetic understanding requires an understanding of a value system of the culture being studied.

To understand behavior, it is necessary to understand the cultural and historical context in which that set of behaviors takes place. To understand the reaction to those behaviors it is necessary to understand how the actors in the environment in which those behaviors are taking place perceive the behavior.

Behavior is all we can observe yet behavior is set in a cultural context, value-relevance as the foundation of historical knowledge.  This can lead to a rational empirical observation of behavior, becoming aware of the most important to balanced investigational scrutiny of performances of people in their everyday life.

Through direct empirical understanding with rational understanding we gain an explanatory understanding. From this understanding we can act more intelligently with fewer unforeseen consequences.

To develop a science of behavior our working explanations requires a grasp of the context of meaning used by the actors within the course of those actions within a historically specific social setting.

Within emotionally charged sets of behaviors the subjective meaning of that behavior exists within the relative social context of its meaning. Connotation is described and contained by this emotive milieu. 

This sets up an interpretative understanding of serving to interpret with an explanatory understanding of events.  Concrete individual cases with the use of fairly accurate approximation within a sociological mass analysis of the social setting we are looking at. This allows for a clarification a recurrently phenomenon as a formulated system. We can now investigate the origin, nature, and limits of human knowledge.

Any decisively noteworthy sufficient concentration of understanding must refer at some point to the subjective interpretation of a plausible direction of behavior whose elemental components parts organized into a coherent whole. These come together in familiar process of thoughts and feelings. Representing distinctive multifaceted sets of meaning.

Causal links are not flawlessly assured, what is certain are when strong correlations of events can be shown in which there exists a relationship of one event leading to another than when the process is reversed there is an argument for cause. If this can be established empirically, the interpretation is meaningful and adequate. This style of research can be used in formulating studies using statistical uniformities and eventually establishing sociological generalizations. Before this can be firmly set up the use of subjective understanding as a source for generating testable hypothesis is very helpful.

What is studied is behavior. Behavior is the behavior of individuals.  This is set in a larger social context of having meaning for actors engaged in those sets of actions. From careful observation the historical sociologist can group together of similar concepts and to be able to establish usable terminology. The sociologist can now arrange these collective concepts to be able to study modes of social behavior. These interpretations represent behavior that is meaningful to the actors. The study social behavior is guided by an understanding of underlying variables that influence their actions. 

Behavior that increases chances of survival leading to the continuation of cultural distinctiveness and continuous connected comprehensive collective of equivalent categories of social behavior that will have an effect on choices made by the actors. This has long-term consequences only if these sets of behavior become typical for any social group.

Generalizations are understandable if we look at social behavior as rational and related to some socially defined goals and values.  This is a methodological decision to avoid unverifiable and unobservable psychological speculation.  Defiant behavior has fundamental plausible and rational ancestry given the specific cultural worldview.

The behaviors we observed could by classified and categorized into useful tools we call laws, which are nothing other than statistical probabilities confirmed through empirical observation. These laws are artificial tool created by us to understand empirical regularities that we observed.

Laws are premises that are heuristic generalization, used in stimulating interest in further investigations stated as a suggestion emphasizing something to be true, characteristically observed flow of behavior. This behavior is understood as plausible quest of aspirations.

Theory a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena. Theory is a working model that organizes our concepts of the empirical world in a systematic way, to help us guide further research and analyze the findings. All theory is based upon empirical variable facts. The strength of a theory is the skill in which it arranges information that can explain complex information in manageable form. It must contain empirical statements that can be tested, and explain a complex interaction of observable phenomena. Theory is not a guess that is a hypothesis. Theory is a factual statement.

Weber

The Concept of Economic Action:

Action will be said to be" economically oriented" so 'far as, according its subjective meaning, it is conceded with the satisfaction of a desire for "utilities". "Economic action" is any peaceful exercise of an actor's control over resources, which is in its main impulse oriented towards economic ends. "Rational economic action" requires instrumental rationality in this orientation, that is, deliberate planning. We will call autocephalous economic action an "economy" and an organized system of continuous economic action an "economic establishment. 

An economic action as such need not be social action:

The definition of economic action must be as general as possible and must bring out the fact that all "economic" processes and objects are characterized as such entirely by the meaning they have for human action in such roles as ends, means, obstacles, and by products. It is not, however, permissible to express this by saying, as is sometimes done, that economic action is a "psychic" phenomenon. The productions of goods, prices, or even t he “subjective valuation” of goods, if they are empirical processes, are far from being merely psychic phenomena. But underlying this misleading phrase is a correct insight. I t is a fact that these phenomena have a peculiar type of subjective meaning. This alone defines t he unity of t he corresponding processes, and this alone makes them accessible to subjective interpretation. The definition of "economic action" must, furthermore, be formulated in such a way as t o include the operation of a modern business enterprise turn for profit. Hence the definition cannot be based directly on "consumption needs" and the "satisfaction" of these needs, but must, rather, start out on the one hand from the fact that there is a desire or demand for utilities (which is true even in the case of orientation to purely monetary gains), and on t he other hand from t he fact that provision is being made to furnish t he supplies to meet this demand which is true even in t he most primitive economy merely "satisfying needs," and regardless of how primitive provisions are.

As distinguished from "economic action" as such, the term "economically oriented action" will be applied to two types; (a) every action which, though primarily oriented to other ends, takes account, in the pursuit of them, of economic considerations; that is, of t he consciously recognized necessity for economic prudence. Or (b) that which is, though primarily oriented to economic ends, makes use of physical force as a, means. It thus includes all primarily non-economic action and all non- peaceful action, which is in influenced by economic considerations. "Economic action", thus is a conscious, primary orientation to economic considerations. I t must be conscious, for what matters is not t he objective necessity of making economic provision, but the belief that it is necessary. Let us rightly laid emphasis on the subjective understandable orientation of action, which makes it economic action.

Every type of action, including t he use of violence, may be economically oriented. This is true, for instance, of warlike action, such as expeditions and trade wars.  We will rightly distinguished "economic" means from "political" means.  It is essential to distinguish the latter from economic action. The use of force is unquestionably very strongly opposed to the spirit of economic acquisition in the usual sense. Hence t he term "economic action" will not be applied to t he direct appropriation of goods by force and the direct coercion of t he other party by threats of force.

Economic exchange is not the only economic means, though it is one of the most important. Further more, the formally peaceful provision for the means and the success of a projected exercise of force, as in the case of armament production and economic organization for war, is just as much economic action as any other.

Every rational course of political action is economically oriented. With respect to provision for the necessary means, and it is always possible for political action to serve the interest of economic ends. Similarly, though it is not necessarily t rue of every economic system, certainly the modern economic order under modern could not continue if its control of resources were not upheld by t he legal compulsion of the state. That is, if its formally "legal" rights were not upheld by t he threat of force.

But the fact that an economic system is thus dependent on protection by force, does not mean t h a t it is itself an example of t he use of force. Ho w entirely untenable it is t o maintain that the economy, however defined, is only a means, by contrast, for instance, with the state, becomes evident from t he fact t h a t it is possible to del1ne t h e state itself only in terms of the means which it today monopolizes, namely, t he use of force.  If anything the most essential aspect of economic action for practical purposes is the prudent choice between ends.  This choice is, however, oriented to t he scarcity of the means which are available or could be procured for these various ends. 

Not every type of action is rational economic or not.  Not every social action has an economic component. Economic is not necessarily technological. Economic is about goals or outcome and technological is about means. Rational requires a choice. This choice has a subjective part that reflects both careful thought and experience. The highest level reflects both logic and thorough empirical research.

Economic actions are generally about meeting needs and desires these include actions concerning such purposes as goals, methods, level of difficulty, and side effects. This goes beyond a subjective evaluation, even though they have deep subjective meaning to the participants. Taking on economic significance even when it is political or social nature, meeting basic human needs is economic in its results.

At some level those involved in economic activity are aware that their actions are economic. This does not mean the motives are the same. Profits and social service at some point may stand in opposition to each other and religious, political, or monetary accumulation may coexist yet at some point they may come in opposition to each other and one motive will take the lead.

Non-economic actions may have an economic component. Thus the term economic orientation is important in understanding the specifics of the activity. Such requires the use of material resources in a way that fulfills the goals of the action. Here motive is very important in using material and social resources that satisfies the rationale and meaning the activity.

Comparative cost:

Comparative costs is a technical term that measures the expenditure of a resource necessary in the production of some good, service, or the attainment of some end. The resource may be labor, money, or materials necessary in achieving a particular goal. It must be assumed some one who has power, in a sociological sense, will make a choice and that some one is at least marginally aware there is at least one other choice. Desirability of the results of making that specific choice will be factored in determining costs. Labor expended, price in money, resources expended may or may not be the critical factor.

In a modern market economy is founded on network of relationships of contracts arranged around a set of connections of power relations. Associations of systems of dealings of bringing together individuals united through the market, fairly or unfairly, through buying and selling what ever they have to offer. This would include some kind of effective distribution of power over the control and disposal of resources including money and labor power.

Weber on Sociology

While looking at the behavior of larger groups are often defined around common goals and core values forms patterns of behavior that vary widely around predictable averages. Weber called these ideal types intellectual tools used in studying behavior. Ideal types become long-term probability statements.

Weber looks at the Protestant Ascetic anti-worldly ethic. Tension between the ideal and the real, is central. This leads to active mastery over the material world. They are always looking for the kingdom of God on Earth.

Out of this protestant culture we the raw materials for rationality. Reason is used to devalue tradition. Each part is rationally integrated into a more efficient whole. All people are the judged by the same standard. In bourgeois society it is commonly get held by the core values of this type of Christianity everyone gets what they deserve.

Sociologists examine the subjective interpretations of the meaning of concrete experiences. Differences between rich and poor can be seen as the luckier ones have a moral obligation to help the less fortunate. It can be seen as the results of an unjust economic system. What Weber discovered among Protestants in Britain in the 17^th century through 19^th wealth was a reward for thrift and hard work. Different groups in different historical settings see this problem differently.

Historical sociologists look for particular clarification of the significance of tangible understandings of the regular consequence grounded upon various practices among many individuals in which the experiences is roughly the same.

Each individual has a personal unique experience and what is needed is to study averages. This the foundation of ideal type created by the researcher to study real world cases. Hypothetical situations are the ideal type of things or ideas, which correspond to theoretical experiences. Meaningful action and reactive behavior are two parts of the same ideal type. Sympathetic understanding offers clarity of understanding and verifiable comprehensions and sympathetic participation of the researcher with the research topic.

In practical terms social behavior can be seen as either being rational or irrational in relation to the core values of that society. Irrational can be understood if we know hat were the rational alternatives how and why actions devoted from a more rational course. 

Weber on traditional authority:

Traditional authority is binding on all members of a community based upon past traditions. Customary power founded within historical institutions being obligatory on participants within the larger society often seems universal and natural. Civilizations’ essence are developed continuously making it appear traditions are being reinvented daily while functioning under the myth it has always been that way. This requires repeated negotiation between actuality and the belief.  New legislation can only happen if it is presented, as this is the way it has always operated as it did in the past. We are returning to tradition. Laws essentially are expressed while being defended corresponding to established routines. In turn rules need to be defined and justified according to custom. Rank and status are explained agreeing to custom. This summarizes who can hold any specific office. In traditional society the office and the individual holding that office are one and the same. The position exists as part of the person holding that rank in their personal life.

Traditional rules govern the officeholder while perform the duties of that office and in their private life.  Conventional guidelines direct the behavior of the rest of the population with relationship to that office. These relationships are integrated with other ranks and authority, which in turn are grounded within tradition. The office hold has much more independence in the exercise of that authority in relation to the people below that authority, than would be the case under rational legal authority. There is no clear separation between the authority of the office and one’s private life.  Property of the office is the personal property of the office holder. This gives the office holder authority over the property of that office, and in turn over the people in the region governed by that office. More often than not authority is hereditary, or appointed by a hereditary office holder.

1. Gerontocracy is the rule by sages of elders. These counselors of seniors are the most ridged of traditional authorities.
2. Patrimonial is a procedure of authority in which power flows directly from the leader. Patrimonial is a complex of administrative staff all of which is under the tight control of the chief.
3. The chief represents the tribe, but the king holds office as if it were his personal property. The chief appeals to the commonly held set of traditional values and is judged accordingly. The king is sanctioned by a superior prodigious commandment. The subjects follow his commands, as his mere words were the law.
4. Benefice is a bundle of rights given as a bequest to be held as personal property, but is not inherited.
5. Fiat is a formal contract that is reciprocal based upon honor and is inherited.
6. Patriarchalism large extended family or clan with the authority resting with a representing the father of the family. Same as but more specific as the chief or king.
7. Traditional commandments and standards creates the meaning of a relationship of authority leading to an agreed upon relations that are mutual and are based upon an understood set of values.
8. This leads to an implied promise to engage that others in the group come to expect. Others then respond accordingly. Social interactions are understandable and predictable. This becomes the rational basis for loyalty.
9. A social order or organization has legitimacy, if the participation of those who see the legitimacy as valid.
10. Behaviors of the larger groups are well defined around common goals and core values forms a patterns of behavior around highly predictable averages. Thus, ideal types are excellent ways of studying behavior. Ideal types become long-term probability statements.

Postmodern is in it's core conservative. Not conservatives that believes in conservatism. But an easy way out, a philosophy founded on arrogant cynicism. I always felt those postmodern professors are fat cats. With good jobs at the university why risk it by taking an ethical stand on a social issue.

My response to post everything including Postmodern, post structuralism, post behaviorist or what ever. Either you is or you ain’t.  Not post or neo. These same debates are in fact very old. I strongly believe like Gramsci the intellectual like the artist is embedded in history. Every class in every nation had its intellectuals throughout history. Free-floating intellectuals ultimately became attached to some class or another. Often the professional class, and that is disturbing.

Social movements historically are not only a starting place of research; they are also a underpinning of moral inspiration. The intellectual, again like the artist is a part of and not independent of the trends and movements within society.  Each generation builds upon the works of pervious generations. For me Epicurus, Giordano Bruno, utopian socialists of the early 19^th century, Hegel, Marx, Engels, Luxemburg, Trotsky, Lenin, Debs, Elizabeth Gurley Flynn, Anarchist-communism of Kropotkin, Anarchist syndicalism of Bakunin, Liberation Theology, Marxist humanism, Christian socialism, Jewish Bund, anti-fascist resistance, IWW, CIO and so on are my intellectual tradition. To set in my office and worry about ethics does not get it. I want to take the inspiration of these old dead guys and build on them and expand on them and bring them up to date. I want to be the narrator of the old left.

 The enlightenment of the 18^th century in Europe set in motion many excesses. This led to imperialism, colonialism, capitalism, destructive industrial technology and the destruction of many traditional societies. Science was a part of this complex. Also socialism led to intemperance and justified malice, fraud and violence.  We need to fully acknowledge this. Accept the criticism. There is also born out of science, socialism and humanism a rich tradition that challenges cruel ignorance, exploitation, oppression and the root of human suffering are better understood and the hope foe a better world and better future is carried out.

The intellectual needs to struggle against arrogance, and narcissism, to fight for daily relevance.  We are a part of what we study both in fact and ethically. By tying myself to this ancient tradition I have a home. I want to make those old dead guys a source of inspiration for my students. They still have a lot to teach us.

Liberal Revolution

Capitalism or Capitalisms, is described by profits for investors as private property. Most economic system democratic or autocratic is justified by an essential set of social ethics. Honor for the patrician despot or comradeship for the egalitarian community.

The investor invests in things that return more money than invested.

This includes producing things to sell. He buys the technology such as tools, raw materials, lands, buildings means of transport, power sources and etc. But, none of this makes sense unless inputs are changed into changed into something that will sell at a higher price than invested. This requires labor power. The capitalist has the money to set the whole thin into motion. Without this money nothing will ever happen. But, this is meaningless prattle without labor power. Production requires money of the investor and needs labor power of living individuals. Even robots require someone to run them.

The worker sells her labor for a wage. The investor has the money, and in his role as capitalist buys materials and labor.  This forms a highly dysfunctional marriage. As her secret lover I side with labor.

Through production the worker changes the material into something new called a commodity. But what is important is a social relation between people is what is real in this economic relation. Because the capitalist owns the original materials and in turn buys labor used up he owns the final product put on the market to sell. This goal is to end up more money than was initially advanced. Thus the

 “Capital” claims his right.

The owner of the money put up will only need enough input in means of production and labor power sufficient to show a profit on his investment. If the cost of either side of the equation can be lowered the he is properly compelled to get most for his buck. If makes a profit this is good if not, not so then the gambler feels his a righteous claim. The worker sees herself as central. Everything the capitalist owns and all his money is the product of past labor. With his new money he has nothing without new labor. This creates an extremely cruel affair.

Capital in General Part 1