Comparison of Modern Society With a Traditional Society - Term Paper Example

Compare and Contrast a Modern Society with a Traditional Society from the point of View of Weber’s Theory of Social Action Table of Contents Introduction 2 Theory of Social Action: A Detailed Study 3 Weber’s Ideal Type of Social Action Based on Individual Motivation 4 Comparative Study of Modern Man and Traditional Man 7 Comparative Study of Traditional Society and Modern Society 7 Conclusion 9 References 11 Bibliography 12 Introduction In order to understand the difference between the ‘Modern Society’ and ‘Traditional Society’, from the Weber’s view of the concept “Social Action”, it is primarily essential to understand the concept of a modern society and that of traditional society in the first place and also the theory of social action from Weber’s point of view. Max Weber (1864-1920) was a renounced social theorist who researched and propounded many innovative theories regarding civic authorities and societies. ‘Theory of Social Action’ is one such great theory propagated by Weber. Weber propounded the ‘Theory of Social Action’ with a vision to clarify the proper domain of analysis pertaining to society and social values. He rightly observed that without a proper understanding of the exact values, beliefs and intentions that motivate and inspire an individual, it is not possible to comprehend the social phenomena. According to Weber, under such circumstances social phenomena can be exposed to description and cannot be analysed properly. Therefore, Weber puts the social action at the centre of the sociological enquiry and argues that understanding of individual behaviour is more important to comprehend social action and behaviour collectively. Man as an individual or cell of society is always given an upper hand in terms of constructing or deconstructing social phenomena, ideals or values (University of Missouri, 2009). Theory of Social Action: A Detailed Study If one tries to understand the concept of a modern society or a traditional society, the behaviour of individuals, who constitute it, comes first. “The contrast between modern and traditional man is the source of contrast between modern society and traditional society”, views Norman W. Provizer (1978) in his epoch making book on comparative politics named as “Analyzing the Third World: Essays from Comparative Politics”. This theory also somewhere echoes the theory of social action put forwarded by Weber and prioritises man as a basic and individual element of society and action concerned with it. Modern social theorists or the sociologists of the twentieth century precisely view the difference between a modern society and traditional society from the perspective of the individuals residing within it, their behaviour towards the society and their behaviour among themselves. Weber defined the ‘Theory of Social Action’ on a plane very much close to the thought process of the modern sociologists. The concept of social action from Weber’s perspective initiates from the difference between the human action and human behaviour. Human action are those activities executed by mankind to which an individual add certain meaning and by human behaviour he meant those activities which are imitated and reacted and they occur in the absence of any specific intentions with the help of some accidents or reflexes. By ‘action’, Weber meant the action of the individual attached to the subjective meaning of individual behaviour within a society and it can be overt or covert and also can be omission and acquiescence. Action in the social realm was viewed by Weber as its subjective meaning and also the behaviour of others is also taken into account or consideration. Like Durkheim, Marx Weber also believed that individuals are entirely social and more than that Weber viewed while discussing his theory of ‘Social Action’ that omission of the capacities of an individual to actively interpret situations, actions and relationships as regards to values, beliefs, faiths, interests, habits, customs, conventions, law, authority, ideas, power and many other social phenomena undermines and hinders the complete comprehension of social analysis. For Weber, a meaningful orientation of an individual being and their actions that make them social must be taken into the parameter of social analysis. On the basis of involvement in motivation, an individual who in the eyes of Weber is the constituent component of a society, there are four ideal types of ‘Social Action’ that operates within a society (Weber, n.d.). Weber’s Ideal Type of Social Action Based on Individual Motivation Weber minutely identified four ideal type of social actions operating within the society. This type of social action is general and based on the factors that motivate an individual within the society. Weber views that the action which ends while being guided by means are rational actions and are motivated by a conscious and methodological calculations based on the means that are available for achieving precise ends. Value-rational actions are motivated by a belief that is particularly conscious within a system that holds some value for its own sake and the values are given to the areas like ethics, religion, aesthetics or politics. Actions that are effective are always guided or motivated by emotions and impulses. Actions that are traditional are motivated by customs received by traditions and are sometimes consequence of habitual responses pertaining to common situations (Weber, 1991). Individual types of social action evolved and could be found in almost all the historical periods and evolutions of civilisation. However, as a consequence of social factors that could be identified as some of the social action became prominent in precise situations. To make this concept more transparent, Weber provided the interpretation for the development of modern industrial societies as regards to the growing rationalism which became similarly affective as the social action pertaining to the traditional types became less prevalent. Form the perception of individual as a dominant component of society viewed by Weber, the difference between Traditional Society and Modern Society can be viewed from a paradigm where modern man could exercise greater control over the environment, natural and social to him. This control evidently is based on the consequences dependant on the expansion of scientific and technological development of knowledge. By thoroughly scrutinizing the Theory of Social Action put forwarded by the social theorist Max Weber, one can easily come to the conclusion that individual difference or in simple words, difference of attitude in man has subsequently arisen from the extent of differences that a man is able to control his environment actually reflects his difference in his attitude which are very fundamental as related with his expectations from his natural environment. Weber strictly thought man as an individual component of society and his attitude within it as a prime priority. Therefore as regards to the Theory of Social Action , it becomes quite essential to understand and study the differences of attitude of a traditional man and a modern man towards his society, natural and social environment and the way he is trying to control or extract benefits from his surrounding environment. Comparative Study of Modern Man and Traditional Man Modern man has faith on both possibilities and desires change. He has the confidence to control the change taking place and potential to accomplish his purpose, attained through this change taking place around him. On the other hand, Traditional man is much non-active and acquiescent. He believes and expects continuity from his natural environment and does not possess the faith that man is capable of controlling or changing his natural environment. According to Weber each individual is social; therefore the difference between the traditional society and modern society arises from the basic difference between a modern and a traditional man. Comparative Study of Traditional Society and Modern Society Modern society, at intellectual and individual level, is marked by the rigorous accumulation of knowledge regarding the environment of man and by the fusion of the accumulated knowledge through society with the aid of the weapons like literacy, mass-communication, and education, modern society has broken the limitations of consistency and achieved the flexibility at the paradigm of exploration, growth and development. As regards to a stark contrast with the traditional society, modern society involves better health amenities, response to reflexes and consequently these has launched the modern society at a plane where there is more mobility in human behaviour and longer expectancy from its natural and social environment. Whereas, traditional society on the other hand, is more rigid and the behavioural pattern operating within the society is constant without much exploration or desired adaptability and change. At the social plane, in modern society, the role of the primary groups have tasks that are more diffusive and these roles are supplanted and supplemented in modern society by organisations that are consciously organized and these groups are secondary associations precisely operating with more desired and specific functions. Comparing these social constituents in traditional society, it would be noticed that as the tendency of exploration was low in the society, so there is less interaction prevalent at the various level of society. Also in a traditional society, such divisions of primary or secondary groups are not that much strong as it is in the modern society. Economically too there is a great difference between a modern and a traditional society. Diversification of activities and breaking of few simple occupations to much complex one is the trend in the modern society. Whereas in traditional kind of society, the skills pertaining to occupations and the ratio of capital with respect to labour is much lower as there is a tendency to adhere to basic and simple occupations. This again is a sign for lack of adaptability, less expectation from the natural environment and lack of flexibility and potential to interact within the society. The scope of geographical exploration and economic activity is much greater in modern society if compared with the traditional one. The centralization of economic activity at a national level is evident in modern society which was on the other hand completely absent in the traditional society. The emergence of national market, sources of national capital and other economic institutes that are operational at a national level is possible only in a modern society and all these phenomena took place in the modern society as Weber views basically due to the change of attitude in mankind within the society (Stanford University Press, 2005). Conclusion Change is the only constant phenomena occurring in the universe. Every element of universe is subjected to it. Human civilisation and society is not beyond any exception in this regard. With the advancement of civilisation mankind has adapted itself to myriad changes occurring in the natural and social environment that surrounds them. Society also fell under the spell of change and with the change of attitude of human, who forms the important component of a society; it evidently went through a metamorphosis. Max Weber viewed this change in society and transformation of its traditional type to a modern one as a consequence of the change in attitude of human beings within the society. Man is essential part or to be precise integral part of the society as viewed by Weber and therefore he gives the interaction of an individual within the society as most phenomenal cause of any transformation occurring within it. Weber rightly delves deep into the mysteries of social science and rightly proves it through his ‘Theory of Social Action’ that understanding and analysing a society or social change is completely impossible without comprehending the behaviour of individual residing within it or rather forming it. Understanding society and complementing the change occurred within it is quite impossible without the perspective of the ‘Theory of Social Change’, propounded by the great social theorist Max Weber. References Provizer, N. W., (1978). Analyzing the Third World: Essays from Comparative Politics. Transaction Publishers. Stanford University Press, (2005). Max Weber's Economy and Society. University of Home Page. Retrieved Online on August 08, 2010 from http://www.sup.org/book.cgi?id=4889 University of Missouri, (2009). The Rationalization of Society. Max Weber. Retrieved Online on August 08, 2010 from http://www.umsl.edu/~keelr/3210/3210_lectures/weber.html Weber, M., (No Date). Basic Concepts of Sociology. ASAHI Net. Retrieved Online on August 08, 2010 from http://www.ne.jp/asahi/moriyuki/abukuma/weber/method/basic/basic_concept_frame.html Weber, M., (1991). The Nature of Social Action. Cambridge University Press. Bibliography Annual Review of Sociology, (1999). Bringing Emotions into Social Exchange Theory. Abstract. Retrieved Online on August 08, 2010 from http://arjournals.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.soc.25.1.217?cookieSet=1&journalCode=soc Giddens, A., (1979). Central Problems in Social Theory: Action, Structure, and Contradiction in Social Analysis. University of California Press. Read More