Social action is the simplest and most directly perceived phenomenon of social reality. The concept of social action was introduced by M. Weber: “We call an action a person’s action (regardless of whether it is external or internal in nature, whether it comes down to non-interference or patient acceptance, if and because the acting individual or individuals associate a subjective meaning with it. “Social” we call an action that, according to the meaning assumed by the actor or actors, correlates with the action of other people and is oriented towards it." From the definition it follows that an action that a person does not think about is not a social action. Thus, a social action cannot be considered an unintentional fall of a person or an involuntary cry of pain, because there is simply no thought process in them. An action in which a person simply does not see a real goal is not a social action. Thus, a person’s unintentional or unconscious participation in a particular gathering cannot be considered a social action , campaign, political action, because in this case there is no thought process and consciously targeted activity. Another important point that the sociologist makes is that the subject of his paradigm is the actions of individuals, not groups. When using the concepts of state, corporation, family, army unit, etc., it should be borne in mind that these and other social structures are not themselves subjects of social action. Therefore, from Weber’s point of view, it is impossible, for example, to understand the actions of parliament or the presidential administration, a company or a family, but one can and should strive to interpret the actions of the individuals who compose them.
A person’s action turns into a social action if it contains two fundamental points:
1) subjective motivation of the individual who puts a certain meaning into his act;
2) orientation to the behavior of other people.
Weber highlighted four types social action individuals who differed in the degree of rationality present in them. It goes without saying that in reality a person does not always know what he wants. Sometimes people’s behavior is dominated by certain values or simply emotions. Focusing on the possible real behavior of people in life, Weber identifies the following types of action:
1. goal-rational,
2. value-rational,
3. affective,
4. traditional.
Let us turn to Weber himself: “Social action, like any other behavior, can be:
1) purposeful and rational, if it is based on the expectation of a certain behavior of objects in the external world and other people and the use of this expectation as “conditions” or “means” to achieve one’s rationally set and thoughtful goal;
2) value-rational, based on belief in the unconditional - aesthetic, religious or any other - self-sufficient value of a certain behavior as such, regardless of what it leads to;
3) affective, primarily emotional, that is, determined by the affects or emotional state of individuals;
4) traditional, that is, based on long-term habit.”
Weber devotes his attention to the problem of understanding social action Special attention, highlighting several types of understanding. He refers to the first type understanding through direct observation. An example of this is the observation on television of the immense joy and well-being of one or another modern Russian politician, his corresponding gestures, which sharply contrasts with the image of a politician even in the 80s - always serious, preoccupied, gloomy. The viewer can understand, rather feel positive emotional condition almost any person from politics. The image itself personifies optimism, righteousness, selflessness, and focus on the future. But is this really so? According to Weber, direct observation is not enough to understand the essence of social action.
The second type of interpretation of social action is explanatory understanding. It involves clarifying the motives of a particular social action. In our example, we need to understand what prompted a happy, life-affirming politician turn out to be the hero of a TV show - whether he came to celebrate the victory in the elections, to gain support for making the desired decisions, or, as they say, to put on a good face at bad game. In order for this type of understanding to be realized, it is necessary, as Weber believes, to put ourselves in the place of the individual whose behavior we are trying to explain, and thereby find out the motives behind his actions.
Third type - causal explanation. It involves finding out what initiated the very motives that led to the corresponding social actions. Here the sociologist insists on the need to discover connections between a whole series of actions or events. This, of course, presupposes serious sociological research. Weber himself conducted this kind of research, seeking, in particular, to identify connections between religious principles and the behavior of individuals, especially their economic and political activities.
A sociologist often has to analyze social actions, understand the social life of its participants when they are distant, not only in space, but also in time. The scientist has materials at his disposal, interpreting which he tries to understand the subjective meanings that existed in the minds of people, their attitude to certain values, in order to give a comprehensive picture of a single social process. How possible is such a comprehensive view? How can sociology as a scientific discipline determine the degree of approximation when analyzing certain specific social actions of people? And if a person himself is not aware of his own actions (due to health reasons or, being under the influence of rally passions, is subjected to psychological pressure, etc.), will a sociologist be able to understand the behavior of such an individual?
Considering such problems (and in the context of different cultures), Weber proposed an original method to resolve them - constructing ideal-typical model social action of the individual. According to Weber, the ideal type allows:
First, to construct a phenomenon or social action as if it took place under ideal conditions;
Secondly, consider this phenomenon or social action regardless of local conditions (it is assumed that if ideal conditions are met, then the action will be performed in this way).
Thirdly, it is possible to compare how well a phenomenon or action fits the ideal type in its quantitative and qualitative parameters. By deviation from the ideal type, the researcher can establish characteristic trends in the course of events.
Interactions lead to the formation of stable social relations. Social process- a set of unidirectional and repetitive actions that can be distinguished from many other aggregate actions. This is a consistent change in the phenomena of social life, social change in dynamics.
Social processes include:
Device- acceptance by an individual or group of cultural norms, values and standards of action of the new environment, when the norms and values learned in the old environment do not lead to the satisfaction of needs and do not create acceptable behavior. Required condition the process of adaptation is submission, since any resistance significantly complicates the individual’s entry into a new structure, and conflict makes this entry or adaptation impossible. Compromise is a form of adaptation that means that an individual or group comes to terms with changing conditions and culture by partially or completely accepting new goals and ways of achieving them. A necessary condition For the successful adaptation process, tolerance towards the new situation, new cultural patterns and new values is essential.
Assimilation- a process of mutual cultural penetration through which individuals and groups come to a common culture shared by all participants in the process.
Amalgamization- biological mixing of two or more ethnic groups or peoples, after which they become one group or people.
Competition- an attempt to achieve rewards by removing or getting ahead of rivals striving for identical goals.
It must consider the behavior of an individual or group of individuals as the starting point of its research. An individual and his behavior are, as it were, a “cell” of sociology, its “atom,” that simplest unity that itself is no longer subject to further decomposition and splitting.
Weber clearly connects the subject of this science with the study social actions: “Sociology... is a science that seeks, through interpretation, to understand social action and thereby causally explain it process and impact" [Weber. 1990. P. 602]. Further, however, the scientist claims that "sociology is not concerned with just “social action,” but it is (at least for the sociology that we are dealing with here) its central problem, constitutive for it as a science" [Ibid. P. 627].
The concept of “social action” in Weber’s interpretation is derived from actions in general, which is understood as such human behavior, in the process of which the acting individual associates with it or, more precisely, puts subjective meaning into it. Therefore, action is a person’s understanding of his own behavior.
This judgment is immediately followed by an explanation of what a social action is: “We call ‘social’ an action that, according to the meaning assumed by the actor or actors, correlates with the action of other people and is oriented towards it” [Ibid. P. 603]. This means that social action is not just “self-oriented”, it is oriented, first of all, towards others. Weber calls orientation toward others “expectation,” without which action cannot be considered social. It is important here to clarify who should be classified as “others”. Of course, these are individuals, but not only that. By “others” we mean “socially general” structures such as the state, law, organizations, unions, etc., i.e. those on whom the individual can and actually focuses in his actions, counting on their certain reaction towards them.
Is every action social? No, Weber claims and cites a number of specific situations that convince the reader of the justice of his negative answer. For example, prayer is not a social action (since it is not designed for its perception by another person and his response). If it's raining outside, gives another example of "unsocial" actions Weber, and people simultaneously open their umbrellas, this does not mean that individuals orient their actions towards actions other people, it’s just that their behavior is equally driven by the need to hide from the rain. This means that an action cannot be considered social if it is determined by an orientation towards some a natural phenomenon. Weber does not consider the purely imitative action performed by an individual in a crowd as its “atom” to be social. Another example of "non-social" actions which he cites concerns actions, focused on the expectation of a certain “behavior” on the part not of other individuals, but of material objects (natural phenomena, machines, etc.).
It is clear, therefore, that social action includes two aspects: a) the subjective motivation of the individual (individuals, groups of people); b) orientation towards others (the other), which Weber calls “expectation” and without which action cannot be considered as social. Its main subject is the individual. Sociology can consider collectives (groups) only as derivatives of their constituents and or species. They (collectives, groups) are not independent realities, but rather ways of organizing the actions of individuals.
Social action in Weber appears in four types: goal-rational, value-rational, affective, traditional. Purposeful action is an action that is based on “the expectation of a certain behavior of objects in the external world and other people and the use of this expectation as “conditions” or “means” to achieve one’s rationally set and thoughtful goal” [Weber. 1990. P. 628]. Rational in relation to the goal, goal-oriented action is actions: an engineer who builds a bridge, a speculator who seeks to make money; a general who wants to win a military victory. In all these cases, goal-oriented behavior is determined by the fact that its subject sets a clear goal and uses appropriate means to achieve it.
The concept of sociology and the “meaning” of social action. Methodological foundations.
Max Weber defines sociology as a science that seeks to interpret and understand social action. Based on cause and effect, the process and interaction of social action can be explained. The object of such science is
Weber identifies such concepts as “Action” and “Social Action”. So, let's look at these concepts separately and find their differences.
« Action“is a human action that has a subjective meaning in relation to acting individuals or an acting individual” (see page 602).
« Social action- this is a human action that has a relationship with the actions of other people and who are oriented towards it, in relation to the actor or actors"
These two concepts that Weber defines have significant differences. In fact, these “disagreements” are as follows: For example, if we take "action", then it no matter that of an external or internal nature, which “reduces to non-interference and to a patient friend”(see page 602), and "social action", on the contrary, includes non-interference and patient acceptance.
Max Weber defines two meanings of the word "meaning". First: “really subjectively assumed by the actor in a given historical situation, or an approximate, average meaning, subjectively assumed by the actors in a certain number of situations”(see page 603). Second: “a theoretically constructed pure type of meaning, subjectively assumed by a hypothetical actor or actors in a given situation”(see page 603).
This interpretation of the word “meaning” makes the author think about the fact that it separates sociology as an empirical science from dogmatic sciences, such as ethics, logic and jurisprudence. This is due to the fact that the interpretation given by Weber to the word “meaning” is not "right and true" meaning, in contrast to these sciences, which seek to determine "right and true" meaning.
It is impossible to draw a clear line between meaningful and reactive behavior.. Because between themno connection with subjectively intended meaning. In the first case, there is no action as such or it can be detected with the help of specialists. In the second case, those experiences that “cannot be understood by those to whom they are inaccessible” (see p. 603).
According to Weber, every interpretation strives for “evidence.” It defines kinds"obvious" understanding. First-rational (logical or mathematical).Second- as a result of “empathy and feeling - emotionally and artistically receptive”(see page 604).
Max V. is convinced that those actions that have a logical or mathematical "form", that is, they represent semantic connections, we can understand more clearly. And those actions that focused on “higher goals and values” we can understand less obviously.
The author says that there is a typological type of research and that all irrational semantic connections (with this type of research) should be considered as a “deviation” in contrast to the purposeful one. In other words, “irrational factors (affects, delusions) of behavior can be understood as a “deviation” from a purely rationally constructed one”(see pages 605-606 ). Only in this sense is the method of “understanding” sociology “rationalistic”. It must be said that This method should be understood only as a methodological device.
Weber proposes to interpret material artifacts based on the fact that that a person associates them with the manufacture and use . In a word, a person must see in an artifact either a goal or a “means.”
The author also says that there are phenomena that cause alien meaning. For example, alien meanings include “all processes or phenomena (living or dead nature, associated with a person or occurring outside of him), devoid of the intended semantic content, acting not as a “means” or “goal” of behavior, but representing only its reason , stimulus or hindrance"(see pages 605-606). Weber even gives an example that proves the “theory” described above. He cites storm surge as an example. . This example clearly demonstrates that a phenomenon is not a “means and goal” of behavior, but it represents, in this case, a reason and an obstacle.
Weber further identifies types of understanding: « 1 ) n direct understanding the intended meaning of the action. This is when we understand the meaning of the rules, for example, 2x2=4 . 2) explanatory understanding. This type can be described as “understanding” motivationally. If you take the example that was in the first case, then you can ask the following questions: Why do you get exactly this number and not another? Who wrote down this example?(see page 607).
Weber also says that “in science, the subject of which is the meaning of behavior, “to explain” means to comprehend the semantic connection, which, according to its subjective meaning, includes an action accessible to direct understanding”(see pages 608-609). In other words, we will understand rational action or irrational action, since they form semantic connections, which means they are understandable.
Further in his work, Max Weber gives concepts such as “motive” and action “adequate to the meaning” . So, what does the author think is the motive? « Motive- this is a semantic unity that appears to the actor or observer as a sufficient reason for a certain action. " Action adequate to the meaning- this is an action that is unified in its manifestations to the extent that the relationship between its components appears to us from the standpoint of our habitual thinking and emotional perception as a typical (we usually say, correct) semantic unity. " Causally adequate- sequence of events, if in accordance with experienced rules one can assume that she will always be like this"(see pages 610-611).
« Sociological patterns are called statistical types of regularity that correspond to the subjectively understandable meaning of social action, are (in the meaning accepted here) types of understandable action"(see page 612).
Weber draws parallels between sociological statics and statics and this is what he found. It turns out that sociological statics deals only with the calculation of meaningful processes, and statics, both meaningful and not meaningful.
Max V. says that It is unacceptable for sociology to consider individuals as a union of cells or a set of biochemical reactions, so like this the rule of behavior will not be clear to us. It is very important that For sociology, the semantic connection of actions is important.
In understanding sociology there is suchmethod-functional. Now let's look at it basic goals: « 1. Practical clarity and preliminary orientation 2. Determination of that type of social behavior, the interpretive understanding of which is important for explaining certain connections"(see page 615).
Weber defines sociological laws- represent a confirmation of the observed probabilities that “under certain conditions, social behavior will take on a character that will make it possible to understand it based on the typical motives and typical subjective meaning that guide the acting individual”(see page 619).
Sociology is not in closer relation to psychology than to all other sciences. Because psychology does not try to explain any human actions using methods that would be close to such a science as sociology.
The author also compares sociology and history. Unlike history, sociology "means" standard concepts and establishment general rules phenomena and processes . There are such types of concepts such as “average” and “ideal”.
"Middle Types" , as a rule, are formed where “we are talking about differences in the degree of qualitatively homogeneous behaviors defined in their meaning”(see page 623).
"Ideal Types"( pure) are necessary in sociology for one simple reason - this is an expression of the “greatest” semantic adequacy. It is this type that represents the presence of sociological casuistry.
There are some heuristic criteria ideal views such as: “the more clearly and unambiguously they are constructed, the further the ideal types are, therefore, from reality, the more fruitful their role in the development of terminology and classification”(see page 623).
“In sociological research, the object of which is concrete reality, it is necessary to constantly keep in mind its deviation from the theoretical structure; establish the degree and nature of such deviation - direct task of sociology"(see page 624).
According to Weber, social actions can be oriented : on the past, present or expected future behavior of other people. As "others" can strangers, many individuals, acquaintances.
It is worth noting that uniform behavior of many and the influence of mass on the individual are not a social action , since this behavior is not focused on the behavior of other people, but is simply accompanied by “mass conditioning”(according to Weber).
Max Weber highlights four types of social action: 1) purposeful, 2) value-rational based on faith 3) affective, above all emotional, 4) traditional; that is, based on a long-term habit.
First view purposeful, whose behavior is focused on the goal, means and side results of his actions. Second type value-rational, has the property of “conscious determination of one’s direction and consistently planned orientation towards it”(see page 629). Third type affective“is on the border and often beyond the limit of what is “meaningful”, consciously oriented; it may be an unimpeded response to a completely unusual stimulus.”(see page 628). And the last, fourth type traditional “is located on the very border, and often even beyond the limit of what can be called “meaningfully” oriented action”(see page 628).
Weber further defines "social attitude". So, in his opinion, « social attitude- this is the behavior of several people, correlated in their meaning with each other and oriented towards this”(see page 630). A sign of such an action is the degree of relationship of one individual to another. And the content can be different, for example, love, friendship; estate, national or class community.
Exists "two-way" social relationship. It, as a rule, must meet the expectations of partners . Here's what Weber writes about this in his book: “the acting individual assumes (perhaps mistakenly or to some extent incorrectly) that a certain attitude towards him (the actor) is also inherent in his partner, and he orients his behavior towards such an expectation, which can in turn have (and usually have) serious consequences both for his behavior and for further relationships between these individuals.”(see pages 631-632).
Weber in his labor claims that “friendship” or “state” exists . But what does this mean? Which means that people who watch this “assume the presence in the present or past of the possibility that, based on a certain kind of attitude of certain people, their behavior usually takes place within the framework of averaging the intended meaning”(see page 631).
The meaning of social relations can be established by long term in “maxims” that are averaged or approximate in their meaning. The parties to such relationships, as a rule, direct their behavior towards their partners.
The content of a social relationship can only be formulated by mutual agreement. But how does this happen? It happens like this: the participants in these social relations give each other assurances that they will observe in the future. He orients his behavior towards “in turn “keep” the agreement in accordance with his understanding of its meaning”(see page 632).
Sociology deals with types of behavior that are similar to each other, that is, there is some uniformity . In other words, there is a sequence of actions with a typical identical intended meaning that is repeated by individuals.
If there is uniformity in the setting of social behavior, then these are morals, according to Weber. But only if if such existence is within a certain circle of people, which in turn is explained by habit.
And we will call morals customs, but only when habits have taken root over a long period of time. So, we will define custom as "interest-driven". This means that the orientation of the behavior of individual individuals should be aimed at the same expectations.
The stability of a custom is built on the fact that there is some individual who does not orient his behavior towards it. It “finds himself outside the framework of the “accepted” in his circle, that is, he must be ready to endure all kinds of minor and major inconveniences and troubles, while the majority of the people around him take into account the existence of the custom and are guided by it in their behavior”(see page 635).
It should also be noted that there is stability of the constellation of interests. It is based on the fact that individual, which “does not focus his behavior on the interests of others - does not “take into account” them, - causes their opposition or comes to a result he does not want and does not intend, as a result of which damage to his own interests may be caused”(see page 635).
Weber in his work mentions such a concept as the importance of the legitimate order. But what could this mean? And this means that social behavior, social relationships are focused on the individual. This individual, in turn, focuses on the idea of the existence of a legitimate order. This is precisely what will be the significance of the legitimate order.
Weber defines the content of social order as order. This happens when the individual’s behavior is guided by clearly defined maxims. The author says that “an order whose stability is based only on purposeful and rational motives is, on the whole, significantly more stable than that order, the orientation towards which is based only on custom, the habit of a certain behavior"(see page 637).
Weber defined two classes of guarantees of legitimacy, namely : convention and law.
The legitimacy of the order within these classes that the author identifies is as follows:: 1) purely affective: emotional devotion, 2) value-rational: belief in the absolute significance of order as an expression of values (for example, moral), 3) religiously: faith in the dependence of good and salvation on the preservation of a given order.
Now let’s look in detail at what Weber means by convention, and what's under right and we'll find their difference, if there are any.
So, a convention is a custom that is considered very important in a particular environment. And if someone from this environment will have a deviation, then he will be condemned.
Right- the presence of a special enforcement group.
Literature:
M. Weber. Basic sociological concepts. // Favorites prod. M., 1990. P. 602-633. (Fragment).
Weber called his concept “understanding sociology.” Sociology analyzes social action and tries to explain its cause. Understanding means knowing a social action through its subjectively implied meaning, that is, the meaning that the subject himself puts into this action. Therefore, sociology reflects the entire diversity of ideas and worldviews that regulate human activity, that is, the entire diversity of human culture. Unlike his contemporaries, Weber did not seek to model sociology natural sciences, relating it to the humanities or, in his terms, to the cultural sciences, which, both in methodology and in subject matter, constitute an autonomous field of knowledge.
All scientific categories are only constructions of our thinking. “Society”, “state”, “institution” are just words, so they should not be assigned ontological characteristics. Only real fact public life is a social action. Every society is a cumulative product of the interaction of specific individuals. Social action is an atom of social life, and it is to this that the sociologist's gaze should be directed. The actions of subjects are considered as motivated, meaningful and oriented towards others; these actions can be analyzed by deciphering the meanings and meanings that subjects give to these actions. Social action, writes Weber, is considered to be an action that is meaningfully correlated with the actions of other people and is oriented towards them.
That is, Weber identifies 2 signs of social action:
Meaningful character;
Focus on the expected reaction of others.
The main categories of understanding sociology are behavior, action and social action. Behavior is the most general category activity that becomes an action if the actor associates a subjective meaning with it. We can talk about social action when the action is correlated with the actions of other people and is oriented towards them. Combinations of social actions form “meaning connections”, on the basis of which social relations and institutions are formed.
The result of Weber's understanding is a hypothesis with a high degree of probability, which must then be confirmed by objective scientific methods.
Weber identifies four types of social action in descending order of their meaningfulness and intelligibility:
Purposeful - when objects or people are interpreted as means to achieve their own rational goals. The subject accurately imagines the goal and selects best option her achievements. This is a pure model of formal-instrumental life orientation; such actions are most often found in the sphere of economic practice.
Value-rational - determined by a conscious belief in the value of a certain action, regardless of its success, performed in the name of some value, and its achievement is more important side effects(for example, the captain is the last to leave a sinking ship);
Traditional - defined by tradition or habit. The individual simply reproduces the pattern of social activity that was previously used in similar situations by him or those around him (a peasant goes to the fair at the same time as his fathers and grandfathers).
Affective - determined by emotions;
According to Weber, a social relationship is a system of social actions; social relationships include such concepts as struggle, love, friendship, competition, exchange, etc. A social relationship, perceived by an individual as obligatory, acquires the status of a legitimate social order. In accordance with the types of social actions, four types of legal (legitimate) order are distinguished: traditional, affective, value-rational and legal.
Concept by Charles Cooley.
Charles Horton Cooley (1864-1929) - American sociologist, direct predecessor of symbolic interactionism. The foundations of Cooley's sociological theory were outlined by him in his works "Human Nature and Social Order" (1902), " Social organization"(1909), "The Social Process" (1918), "Sociological Theory and social research"(1930). By his education, C. Cooley is an economist, who later reoriented himself to sociology. He gained fame thanks to his work in the field of socialization and primary groups. He was responsible for the creation of one of the first sociological and socio-psychological concepts of personality, which laid the foundation for an independent direction in world sociology, - interactionism.
Cooley's main concept is called the "mirror self" theory. Its origins go back to pragmatism, in particular the ideas about the “social self” of W. James and the views of J. Dewey. Cooley's concept received its final completion later from J. Mead. According to William James, a person has as many “social selves” as there are individuals and groups whose opinions he cares about. Continuing James's ideas, Cooley called the most important feature a social being, the ability to distinguish oneself from a group and be aware of one’s “I”. This happens through communication with other people and assimilation of their opinions about themselves.
Cooley proposed that the self consists of self-feelings that are formed through relationships with others. We see ourselves through the reflection of our feelings in the realities of others. They are a mirror for us. Our ideas about ourselves come: 1) through our imagination of how we appear to others; 2) we think they are holding us back; 3) how we feel about all this. In other words, our understanding of ourselves is a process, not a fixed state; it always evolves as we interact with others, whose opinions of us are constantly changing. A person is not a passive receiver; on the contrary, he actively manipulates the decisions of others, selecting them, which one should be followed or not, and evaluates the roles of partners. Not all information we receive from others affects us. We tend to accept only those perspectives that confirm our own self-image and resist all others.
He emphasized the fundamental role of consciousness in shaping social processes. “Human life” is the integrity of the individual and the social. Cooley is the creator of the theory of primary groups, which embody the universal character of human nature, and the theory of the “mirror self.” Cooley defined human nature as biological and social, developed through interaction in primary groups and being a complex of social feelings, attitudes, and moral norms.
The “looking-glass self” is a society that serves as a kind of mirror. In such a mirror we can see other people's reactions to our own behavior. Our concept of ourselves originates precisely in such reflection, observing the responses of other people - or imagining what they should be, i.e. how those around us should react to this or that action of ours - we are only capable of assessing ourselves and our own actions.
If the image we see in the mirror or only imagine that we see is favorable, our self-concept is reinforced and the actions are repeated. And if it is unfavorable, our self-concept is revised and behavior changes. We are defined by other people and are guided in our behavior and perception by such a definition.
By receiving confirmation of our idea of ourselves over and over again, we strengthen ourselves, gradually acquiring the integrity of ourselves. The ideas about one's own “I” that a person acquires, which arise in the creation of other people, Cooley calls “representations of ideas.”
They are recognized as social factors and act as the main subject of sociology. The self-concept is formed, refined and strengthened day by day in the interaction of people with each other. By how others treat him, a person can judge what type of people he belongs to. Everyone’s opinion about their intellectual capabilities, moral qualities and physical abilities, about what actions are expected of them, arises in the course of interaction in organized group(primary and secondary). Therefore, Cooley's sense of self-determination is like a "mirror self."
"Social Action", according to Max Weber, is distinguished by two characteristics that make it social, i.e. different simply from action. Social action: 1) has meaning for the one who performs it, and 2) is focused on other people. Meaning is a certain idea of why or why this action is performed; it is some (sometimes very vague) awareness and direction of it. There is a well-known example with which M. Weber illustrates his definition of social action: if two cyclists collide on the highway, then this is not a social action (although it occurs between people) - that’s when they jump up and begin to sort things out among themselves (quarrel or help each other). friend), then the action acquires the characteristic of social.
M. Weber identified four main types of social actions:
1) goal-oriented, in which there is a correspondence between goals and means of action;
“An individual whose behavior is focused on the goal, means and by-products of his action acts purposefully, who rationally considers the relationship of the means to the goal and by-products... that is, he acts, in any case, not affectively (not emotionally) and not traditionally.” In other words, goal-oriented action is characterized by a clear understanding by the Actor of his goal and the means that are most suitable and effective for this. The actor calculates the potential reactions of others and the possibility of using them to achieve his goal.
2) value-rational, in which an action is performed for the sake of some value;
Subject to certain requirements, taking into account the values accepted in this society. The individual in this case does not have any external, rationally understood goal; he is strictly focused on fulfilling his beliefs about duty, dignity, and beauty. According to M. Weber: value-rational action is always subject to “commandments” or “demands”, obedience to which a person considers his duty. In this case, the consciousness of the Doer is not completely liberated, since when making decisions, resolving contradictions between personal goals and orientation towards another, he is strictly guided by the values accepted in society.
3) affective, based on people’s emotional reactions;
Such an action is caused by a purely emotional state and is carried out in a state of passion, in which the role of consciousness is minimized. A person in such a state strives to immediately satisfy the feelings he experiences (thirst for revenge, anger, hatred); this, of course, is not an instinctive, but a deliberate action. But the basis of such a motive is not rational calculation, not the “service” of value, but a feeling, an affect that sets a goal and develops the means to achieve it.
4) traditional, occurring in accordance with traditions and customs.
In traditional action the independent role of consciousness is also extremely minimized. Such an action is carried out on the basis of deeply learned social patterns of behavior, norms that have become habitual, traditional, and not subject to verification of truth. And in this case, the independent moral consciousness of this person is “not included”; he acts “like everyone else,” “as has been customary from time immemorial.”
“The will to power” by F. Nietzsche and nihilism. Causes of occurrence in society.
“The triumphant concept of “power” with the help of which our physicists created God and the world,” Nietzsche wrote, “requires addition: some internal will must be introduced into it, which I call the “will to power,” i.e. insatiable desire for the manifestation of power or the use of power, the use of power as a creative instinct, etc.
The will to accumulate strength and increase power is interpreted by him as a specific property of all phenomena, including social and political-legal ones. Moreover, the will to power is everywhere the most primitive form of affect, namely the “affect of command.” In the light of this, Nietzsche’s teaching presents the morphology of the will to power.
Nietzsche characterizes the entire socio-political history as a struggle between two wills to power - the will of the strong (higher species, aristocratic masters) and the will of the weak (the masses, slaves, crowds, herds). The aristocratic will to power is the instinct of ascent, the will to live; the slavish will to power is the instinct of decline, the will to death, to nothing. High culture is aristocratic, but the dominance of the “Crowd” leads to the degeneration of culture, to decadence.
Nietzsche reduces “European nihilism” to some basic postulates, which he considers his duty to proclaim with sharpness, without fear or hypocrisy. Theses: nothing is true anymore; god died; no morals; everything is allowed. We must understand Nietzsche precisely - he strives, in his own words, not to engage in lamentations and moralistic wishes, but to “describe the future,” which cannot but come. According to his deepest conviction (which, unfortunately, the history of the ending 20th century will not refute), nihilism will become a reality at least for the next two centuries. European culture, Nietzsche continues his reasoning, has long been developing under the yoke of tension, which grows from century to century, bringing humanity and the world closer to catastrophe. Nietzsche declares himself “the first nihilist of Europe”, “the philosopher of nihilism and the messenger of instinct” in the sense that he portrays nihilism as inevitable, calling to understand its essence. Nihilism can become a symptom of the final decline of the will directed against being. This is the "nihilism of the weak." “What is bad? - Everything that follows from weakness” (“Antichrist.” Aphorism 2). And the “nihilism of the strong” can and should become a sign of recovery, the awakening of a new will to be. Without false modesty, Nietzsche declares that in relation to “the signs of decline and beginning” he has a special instinct, greater than any other person. I can, the philosopher says about himself, be a teacher for other people, because I know both poles of the contradiction of life; I am this very contradiction.
Causes of occurrence in society.(From the work “The Will to Power”)
Nihilism is behind the doors: where does the most terrible of all come to us?
guests? - Starting point: fallacy - pointing to “disaster”
state of society" or "physiological degeneration", or,
perhaps also on depravity as a cause of nihilism. This -
the most honest and compassionate era
Need, spiritual,
bodily and intellectual need in itself is absolutely not
can give rise to nihilism (i.e. a radical deviation of value,
meaning, desirability). These needs still allow the most
various interpretations. On the contrary, in one very specific
Interpretation, Christian-moral, lays the root of nihilism.
The death of Christianity is from its morality (it is inseparable); this moral
turns against the Christian God (sense of truthfulness, high
developed by Christianity, begins to experience an aversion to falsehood and
the lies of all Christian interpretations of the world and history. Cutting
a turn back from “God is truth” to the fanatical belief “Everything is false.”
Buddhism matters.
Skepticism about morality is crucial. A fall
moral interpretation of the world that no longer finds sanction,
after they attempted to find refuge in some
otherworldliness: ultimately - nihilism.
