Definition of order and action

Generally speaking, the word “order” can signify different things to different individuals. However, order in sociology refers to a certain collection of predetermined social institutions, values, norms, practices, interactions, and structures that are intended to preserve, enforce, and preserve a variety of socially established patterns of behavior and relationships (Appelrouth & Edles, 2008). In actuality, order governs how society functions, and without it, society devolves into a sea of social disorder and madness. Many social theorists have produced many theories to define and explain social order. For instance, according to Parsons social theory, order is used to refer to a set of social institutions based on societal values controlling the pattern of individual actions (Appelrouth & Edles, 2008). Karl Marx asserts that relations of economic structure and production constitute social order.

On the other hand term ‘action’ according to sociology refers to human behavior to which the doer associates with subjective meaning (Weber). Action is subjective in nature in that one individual’s behavior definitely affects the behavior of other members of society. Nonetheless, individual’s action in society is by far determined and modified by behavior of other members of society (Appelrouth & Edles, 2008). Significantly, an individual’s behavior can have social consequences (positive or negative) and it is because of these consequences that the social order is established.

Social order and action in one way or the other affect the way individuals make decisions. Indeed, the number of choices members of society may have is limited by social order and behavior. For example, an individual may be willing to amass a lot of wealth through evil and illegal means such as corruption, deceit and theft. However, due to social order and action attached to the act, the individual choice is restricted.

Marx concept of fetishism of commodities

Karl Marx adopts approach of material obsession to explain the concept of fetishism of commodities in capitalist society (Amariglio & Callari, 1993). Marx asserts that social relations in capitalist society are disguised in value derived from goods and services (commodities). In capitalist society production commodities are much regarded and valued than the actual human labor that produces the commodities themselves (Amariglio & Callari, 1993). Marx wonders whether the commodities are intrinsically worthy or they are valuable because human labor is consumed to manufacture them. In fact, here Marx criticizes the value and attention awarded to commodities at the expense of human labor.

Marx argues that if the element of human labor is hidden or treated secretly in capitalist society, then the world can be mistakenly viewed as if production and marketing arrangements take place independent of human labor (Amariglio & Callari, 1993). In his description of fetishism of commodities, Marx clearly shows how the workers are separated from end product of their labor (commodity). In capitalist society, the laborer is alienated from his/her labor and has no control over the products resulting from his/her own labor. According to Marx, social relations only exist among commodities but not within the workers (Amariglio & Callari, 1993). In conclusion, Marx terms commodity as a ‘mysterious thing’ simply because the element of human labor is not respected in capitalist society. Moreover, in capitalist society the workers are deprived of their labor which in is turn treated by producers as lynch-pin social relation.

The role of calling and outward signs of grace in the development of capitalism

According to Max Weber, religious beliefs such as art of calling and grace particularly from protestant Christians promoted development of capitalism (Weber, 2002). Weber argues that development of capitalism in Northern Europe is attributed to the fact that Protestant ethics specifically those of Calvinist origin encouraged many people to work in secular world (Weber, 2002). The protestant ethics encouraged the people to establish their own businesses, participate in trade activities and amass wealth for investment. Weber argues that some religious teaching for instance, equating money to time contained moral language which in turn encouraged people to be capitalists (Weber, 2002). Asceticism in Protestants advocated for religious self-denial and presented to people a moral obligation to fulfill their worldly goals. In fact, Weber associates religious calling with reformation and protestant way of thinking. Fulfilling ones worldly goals was regarded as biggest moral obligation in Protestant religion. According to Weber, Calvinism held on certain doctrines such as grace being irresistible and doctrine of predestination which viewed God’s will as sovereign. These religious teachings psychologically influenced religious followers to adopt capitalism.

Development of capitalism had great effects on religious calling and signs of grace. According to Weber, capitalism transformed thinking and way of life for many people. Capitalism led to evolution of division of labor and justification of profit-making businesses (Weber, 2002). People changed their attitude towards wealth and associated it with glorifying God.

Comparing and contrasting Weber’s types of legitimate domination

Max Weber draws a clear demarcation between power and domination. According to Weber power involves use of force by an individual to achieve his/her will, an element that lacks in domination (Weber, 1993). Domination is lawful when those under authority (subordinates) obey, accept and regard denomination as suitable, tolerable and worthy (Weber, 1993). All forms of legal authority are characterized by traits such as obedience, regularity, interest and belief. There three types of legitimate domination or authority namely; charismatic, traditional and legal authorities (Weber, 1993). The three forms of legal domination show how dominant individuals (leaders) practice power over subordinates.

Traditional authority is grounded on cultural norms, religious beliefs, tradition and values (Weber, 1993). The leader derives his/her power from traditional rights granted to him/her by culture. According to Weber, traditional authority existed in many societies since evolution of mankind. Main merit of this form of legitimate domination is that it is easy to establish and run. Weaknesses of traditional authority include perpetuation of social inequality and barrier to establishment of legal authority. In fact, some of cultural values are outdated and retrogressive and thus little benefit is derived from them. Patriarchalism (rule by father, senior member of house and master) and rule by elders are good examples of traditional authority.

Charismatic legitimate domination is based on dominant individual’s personality. In this domination the leader displays extra-ordinary or exceptional personal characters and skills, for instance he/she may have eloquent speech. The followers regard their dominant individuals as having superhuman or supernatural powers (Weber, 1993). According to Weber, charismatic leader derives his/her power from factual acceptance and faithful commitment (Weber, 1993). The strength of this authority is that the followers accept the rule of charismatic leader without any challenges due to supernatural elements attached to them. However, this authority has a weakness in that it is short lived. Examples of charismatic leaders are Martin Luther King Jr. and Mahatma Gandhi.

Legal authority is based on established legal rules and regulations. Here the dominant individual derives his/her power from established legal system which encompasses aspects such as rule of law, legal code and legal rights (Weber, 1993). Similarly, the followers are governed and ruled by laws and regulations. Advantage of this authority is that law and order is maintained and subordinates have right to challenge the legality of the system. Legal authority requires a lot of bureaucracy, an act that presents barrier in addressing subordinates challenges. Good example of legal authority is administration rule in modern societies.

References

Appelrouth, S., & Edles, L. D. (2008). Classical and contemporary sociological theory: Text and readings. Pine Forge Press.

Amariglio, J., & Callari, A. (1993). Marxian value theory and the problem of the subject: The role of commodity fetishism. Fetishism as cultural discourse, 186-216.

Weber, M. (2002). The Protestant ethic and the“ spirit” of capitalism and other writings. Penguin.

Weber, M. (1993). The types of legitimate domination.