ASA FORMAT/CITATION

Question:
Learning to express complex ideas in a short, easily understood fashion is an important skill for applied sociologists. And that is precisely what this assignment calls upon you to do. Give me your quick take (250 words maximum) on what you’ve read about Max Weber in this section.
What do you think is the most troubling aspect of The Freiburg Address? Do you see any parallels between the nationalism expressed in this speech and attitudes in our own time? And is Weber a good role model for applied sociologists?
Be sure to draw upon at least one scholarly source (such as a journal article or books) beyond the material assigned for this section to support your argument. Answer in the space below.

Answer Reference(s):
A Look at Max Weber:
https://youtu.be/ICppFQ6Tabw

Bio Max Weber:
https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Max_Weber

Modernist Anti-Pluralism and the Polish Question:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/488244?seq=1

The national state and economic policy (Freiburgaddress):
PDF Uploaded

Note(s):
Among the many contributions Weber makes to sociology are:

his ideas about the nature of authority in society,
his exploration of different religions and their impact upon societies,
his insights into modernity and the power of bureaucracy,
and his more subtle understanding of social class and status.
Weber also explores the power of ideas to shape human behavior — which is one of the things I find especially valuable in his work. I think Weber also advances a human-centered form of sociology in which people play a major role in the construction of a society that stands somewhat in contrast to Durkheim’s view of a world shaped by social facts and Marx’s economic determinism.

Still, there is an ominous spirit in the Freiburg address, all the more ominous when you think that in a little over a decade after Webers death, the Nazis would come to power with their fusion of racism, nationalism, and anti-Semitism.

Did Weber fan flames that fed the latter fire of National Socialism? Perhaps. From our perspective today it at least looks like he was playing with fire. However, I don’t think this was his intention. In fact, his latter work stood in direct counterpoint to what the Nazis stood for. However, the currents of racism, nationalism, and anti-Semitism ran deeply in the west at the time the Freiburg address was written and provided among other things a justification for colonialism.

At the outbreak of the First World War, Weber was quite the nationalist, volunteered for national service, and was put in charge of organizing army hospitals in Heidelberg. As the war drug on his attitude changed dramatically. By the end of the war, he had rejected this nationalistic impulse, was calling for greater democracy and universal suffrage. He co-founded the German Democratic Party and would help write the Weimar Constitution that created the republic which Hitler overthrew.

Nevertheless, these awful themes which Weber echoes in the Freiburg Address, themes that were so ingrained in German and indeed Western intellectual circles certainly fed the ideology and propaganda of the National Socialists, providing inspiration and intellectual cover. Having planted these seeds, the world was about to reap a terrible whirlwind.

So in this section, we’re going to be taking a look at Max Weber. You’ll learn a lot more about Max Weber in the Applied Sociological Theory class where we take a deeper dive into his writings. But in this one, essentially, we will be introducing the last of the three people that are considered to be the sociological trinity — Marx, Durkheim, and now Max Weber. Weber was very much a product of his time. A brilliant German scholar, he was a sociologist, an attorney, very active in the political movements of his day. He was in fact a member of the German equivalent of the German Parliament, and one of the authors of the Weimar Constitution which were the constitution, that guided Germany as a democracy between the end of World War One and the rise of Adolf Hitler. Weber, himself died before the rise of the Nazi party. But Weber was very concerned about the ways in which how we think influences the way we act — and how society reflects and changes and shapes the way we think. As you read through these readings, I think it is a really good exposure to Weber as an applied sociologist. Much of the work he did, he worked outside of academia for most of his career.

Some of his most important work actually was done outside of academia. One of the papers that you’ll read is called “The Freiburg Address.” This was something done early in Weber’s career. It touches on some very unsettling themes of German nationalism. Racial superiority, the idea of different ethnicities, actually being different races. Things that are now completely discredited. They were very much, part of the western intellectual firmament of this time. So he’s reflecting, he’s reflecting a sentiment that’s pretty common among German scholars of his era. If anything, he’s probably a bit liberal for his time. But he undergoes a huge evolution in his thought as his career progresses. And he becomes more, for lack of a better word, more liberal. Not liberal in the sense of conservative-liberal as we describe it in the United States, but liberal in the sense of supportive of liberal democracy. So, as you’re reading through this material, watching these videos, keep this in mind. Keep at the forefront of your mind the idea that Weber is very much in the mold of an applied sociologist, and at the same time is considered one of the founding fathers of the discipline, which I think really highlights this idea that there is a strong applied tradition that runs through the heart of sociology. Interestingly of the three people, we’re discussing here. Weber is the only one that ever visited the United States.

He came in the early 1900s, made a visit to the US prior to this was prior to the First World War, traveled to a meeting of the American Sociological Association, traveled out to the west coast. And actually traveled to North Carolina to a tiny town where he had cousins living in a small rural area in North Carolina. Visited with them, attended the Baptist Church which was sort of interesting. Weber was one of the preeminent scholars of religion at the time. So again, as you go through the material, pay some attention to the idea that Weber’s underlying assumptions and ideas about the world may be shifting somewhat as his career moves forward. Think about what these early ideas say about predominant intellectual currents in western Europe at the time, and think about Weber as sort of an embodiment of an applied sociologist, and whether you think he’s a good role model for applied sociologists today.

Reference(s):
A Look at Max Weber:
https://youtu.be/ICppFQ6Tabw

Bio Max Weber:
https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Max_Weber

Modernist Anti-Pluralism and the Polish Question:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/488244?seq=1

Max Weber & Ben Fowkes (1980): The national state and economic policy (Freiburg address)Preview the document, Economy
and Society, 9:4, 428-449 (UPLOADED AS PDF)

Durkheim, Emile. 1997. Suicide. New York: The Free Press.

Price, Jammie, Roger A. Straus, and Jeffrey R. Breese. 2009. Doing Sociology: Case Studies in Sociological Practice. Lanham, Maryland: Lexington Books.

Steele, Stephen F. and Jammie Price. 2008. Applied Sociology: Terms, Topics, Tools and Tasks. Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.

ASA FORMAT/CITATION

Question:
Politician, lawyer, and a sociologist — does Max Weber provide a good role model for applied sociologists? Why or why not? How do the ideas expressed in the Freiburg Address influence your opinion?

Answer Reference(s):
A Look at Max Weber:
https://youtu.be/ICppFQ6Tabw

Bio Max Weber:
https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Max_Weber

Modernist Anti-Pluralism and the Polish Question:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/488244?seq=1

The national state and economic policy (Freiburgaddress):
PDF Uploaded

Note(s):
Among the many contributions Weber makes to sociology are:

his ideas about the nature of authority in society,
his exploration of different religions and their impact upon societies,
his insights into modernity and the power of bureaucracy,
and his more subtle understanding of social class and status.
Weber also explores the power of ideas to shape human behavior — which is one of the things I find especially valuable in his work. I think Weber also advances a human-centered form of sociology in which people play a major role in the construction of a society that stands somewhat in contrast to Durkheim’s view of a world shaped by social facts and Marx’s economic determinism.

Still, there is an ominous spirit in the Freiburg address, all the more ominous when you think that in a little over a decade after Webers death, the Nazis would come to power with their fusion of racism, nationalism, and anti-Semitism.

Did Weber fan flames that fed the latter fire of National Socialism? Perhaps. From our perspective today it at least looks like he was playing with fire. However, I don’t think this was his intention. In fact, his latter work stood in direct counterpoint to what the Nazis stood for. However, the currents of racism, nationalism, and anti-Semitism ran deeply in the west at the time the Freiburg address was written and provided among other things a justification for colonialism.

At the outbreak of the First World War, Weber was quite the nationalist, volunteered for national service, and was put in charge of organizing army hospitals in Heidelberg. As the war drug on his attitude changed dramatically. By the end of the war, he had rejected this nationalistic impulse, was calling for greater democracy and universal suffrage. He co-founded the German Democratic Party and would help write the Weimar Constitution that created the republic which Hitler overthrew.

Nevertheless, these awful themes which Weber echoes in the Freiburg Address, themes that were so ingrained in German and indeed Western intellectual circles certainly fed the ideology and propaganda of the National Socialists, providing inspiration and intellectual cover. Having planted these seeds, the world was about to reap a terrible whirlwind.

So in this section, we’re going to be taking a look at Max Weber. You’ll learn a lot more about Max Weber in the Applied Sociological Theory class where we take a deeper dive into his writings. But in this one, essentially, we will be introducing the last of the three people that are considered to be the sociological trinity — Marx, Durkheim, and now Max Weber. Weber was very much a product of his time. A brilliant German scholar, he was a sociologist, an attorney, very active in the political movements of his day. He was in fact a member of the German equivalent of the German Parliament, and one of the authors of the Weimar Constitution which were the constitution, that guided Germany as a democracy between the end of World War One and the rise of Adolf Hitler. Weber, himself died before the rise of the Nazi party. But Weber was very concerned about the ways in which how we think influences the way we act — and how society reflects and changes and shapes the way we think. As you read through these readings, I think it is a really good exposure to Weber as an applied sociologist. Much of the work he did, he worked outside of academia for most of his career.

Some of his most important work actually was done outside of academia. One of the papers that you’ll read is called “The Freiburg Address.” This was something done early in Weber’s career. It touches on some very unsettling themes of German nationalism. Racial superiority, the idea of different ethnicities, actually being different races. Things that are now completely discredited. They were very much, part of the western intellectual firmament of this time. So he’s reflecting, he’s reflecting a sentiment that’s pretty common among German scholars of his era. If anything, he’s probably a bit liberal for his time. But he undergoes a huge evolution in his thought as his career progresses. And he becomes more, for lack of a better word, more liberal. Not liberal in the sense of conservative-liberal as we describe it in the United States, but liberal in the sense of supportive of liberal democracy. So, as you’re reading through this material, watching these videos, keep this in mind. Keep at the forefront of your mind the idea that Weber is very much in the mold of an applied sociologist, and at the same time is considered one of the founding fathers of the discipline, which I think really highlights this idea that there is a strong applied tradition that runs through the heart of sociology. Interestingly of the three people, we’re discussing here. Weber is the only one that ever visited the United States.

He came in the early 1900s, made a visit to the US prior to this was prior to the First World War, traveled to a meeting of the American Sociological Association, traveled out to the west coast. And actually traveled to North Carolina to a tiny town where he had cousins living in a small rural area in North Carolina. Visited with them, attended the Baptist Church which was sort of interesting. Weber was one of the preeminent scholars of religion at the time. So again, as you go through the material, pay some attention to the idea that Weber’s underlying assumptions and ideas about the world may be shifting somewhat as his career moves forward. Think about what these early ideas say about predominant intellectual currents in western Europe at the time, and think about Weber as sort of an embodiment of an applied sociologist, and whether you think he’s a good role model for applied sociologists today.

Reference(s):
A Look at Max Weber:
https://youtu.be/ICppFQ6Tabw

Bio Max Weber:
https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Max_Weber

Modernist Anti-Pluralism and the Polish Question:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/488244?seq=1

Max Weber & Ben Fowkes (1980): The national state and economic policy (Freiburg address)Preview the document, Economy
and Society, 9:4, 428-449 (UPLOADED AS PDF)

Durkheim, Emile. 1997. Suicide. New York: The Free Press.

Price, Jammie, Roger A. Straus and Jeffrey R. Breese. 2009. Doing Sociology: Case Studies in Sociological Practice. Lanham, Maryland: Lexington Books.

Steele, Stephen F. and Jammie Price. 2008. Applied Sociology: Terms, Topics, Tools and Tasks. Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.

Question(s):
So, what are your reactions to Durkheim? Any concepts that resonate with you — or, are there any that seem way off base? Why is social cohesion such a theme in 19th-century social theory?

Answer Reference(s):
Edles, Laura Desfor, and Scott Appelrouth. 2010. Sociological Theory in the Classical Era. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press. pgs. 94 – 122 and pages 134 – 152.
This reading will cover a biographical and introductory sketch of Durkheim as well as excerpts from The Division of Labor, The Rules of the Sociological Method, and some introductory notes on Suicide. It will also include introductory remarks on and excerpts from The Elementary Forms of Religious Life.

Alan Macfarlane on Emile Durkheim:
https://youtu.be/IfjycYvlZGg

Durkheim and Social Solidarity:
https://youtu.be/3VwoihGP_i8

NOTE(s):
Durkheim’s Division of Labor is a seminal work; more than a century after publication it remains one of the most important works in sociology. Not bad for a doctoral dissertation! In the Division of Labor, Durkheim opts for evolutionary theory to explain the development of modern society. His approach is more deeply rooted in biology than that of Karl Marx and draws upon concepts such as carrying capacity to explain sociological transitions.

As you know from your reading, Durkheim saw a man moving across an evolutionary arc from primitive to modern society. Each stage developed social structures suited to the environment (natural and human) in which it was rooted. Mechanical solidarity a sort of shared worldview was the glue that held more primitive societies together. If you see shades of asabiyyah in this concept, you are not hallucinating. There are indeed similarities in the two concepts. Durkheim was influenced by the work of the French philosophers Montesquieu and Rousseau both of whom addressed the concept of collective consciousness. There is strong evidence that Rousseau was familiar with the work of Ibn Khaldun, and Montesquieu probably was as well. That is not to say that Durkheim was simply lifting an idea from Khaldun with whom he may or may not have been familiar with. Rather, powerful concepts tend to pass from scholar to scholar being modified to fit their understanding of the world around them.

A chief difference between Khaldun and Durkheim, however, was that the former worked from a cyclical paradigm and the latter from an evolutionary one. Khaldoun saw asabiyyah weakening across the generations until a new tribe with strong asabiyyah conquered the existing elites, and then the cycle inevitably repeated itself. Durkheim saw a brilliant alternative. Societies adapted and grew more complex as their environment changed, progressing toward modern societies where mechanical solidarity was replaced by organic solidarity in which mutual dependence was the glue that held it all together. Thus, the fundamental structure and shape of society change. It is an incredibly modern turn, and it is all laid out in the pages of The Division of Labor.

Anomie: Durkheim also believed society could malfunction and become pathological. In his studies of the world around him, Durkheim saw the impact of rapid urbanization and modernization. The cities of Europe were growing at a rapid pace; people were often left feeling adrift and unmoored, resulting in anomie. These views were not merely the product of idle speculation on his part. He is an exemplar of applied sociology who was actively engaged in the practice of sociology with works like Suicide. He was seeing and studying a world transformed before his eyes and eventually was watching it slide into World War I, a horrible conflict that would claim the life of his son.

Religion: Even though Durkheim never followed the rabbinical tradition of his family, he remained fascinated by the impact of religion on society. His work on religion is astounding, and even if you ultimately disagree with some of his conclusions you cant help but be overwhelmed by the brilliance of the work. Here is a guy who was a positivist to the core grappling with metaphysical mysteries and the ways in which our understanding of them both shapes and is shaped by our social world.

All in all, Durkheim leaves a heckuva legacy. Hard to imagine what the discipline would be like without him.

Well, for one thing, it must have appeared that society was coming apart at the seams during this period. We sometimes forget that the industrial revolution was just that, a revolution in the way people lived that was brought about by advances in technology.

One of the most dramatic of those changes was the rapid growth of cities. In 1800 the population of Paris was about 547,000 people, and the city covered about 13 square miles. By 1900, the population was 2.7 million, and the city sprawled across about 45 square miles. Much of that population explosion occurred within Durkheim’s own lifetime. At the time of his birth in 1858, Paris had about 1.6 million people; when he died, the population was approaching 2.9 million.

Other cities across Europe experienced similar surges in urbanization as people poured in from the countryside to work in factories and in the service businesses needed to support these urban centers. These folks often found themselves adrift in the big city without the structured existence of village or farm life to guide them. Custom and convention gave way to the demands of modern industrial society. For example, their daily life was structured by the factory clock rather than the rising or setting of the sun or the demands of the season.

With this increased population density came social problems like crime, prostitution, and alcohol and drug use. And people down on their luck often realized they lacked their old social network of kinfolk to whom they could turn for immediate help.

Placed in this context, it is clear that in his work Durkheim is struggling to make sense of — and perhaps find solutions for — the social problems of his day. His interest in social solidarity and anomie is not a purely academic exercise, but an attempt to address very real concerns

Reference(s):
Edles, Laura D. and Scott Appelrouth. 2010. Sociological Theory in the Classical Era. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.

Grenfell, Michael James (ed). 2012. Pierre Bourdieu: Key Concepts. New York: Routledge.

Alan Macfarlane on Emile Durkheim:
https://youtu.be/IfjycYvlZGg

Durkheim and Social Solidarity:
https://youtu.be/3VwoihGP_i8

Scott, John. 2014. A Dictionary of Sociology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.