What is Social Action? Explain the methodology to study it.

The following essay aims to examine the concept of social action and the methodology to
study it, based on the reading, Economy and Society: An outline of Interpretive Sociology,
by sociologist Max Weber. The reading mainly deals with the definition of sociology and the
area of study undertaken by sociologists. The author follows the interpretive method of
sociology and explains to us the definition of social action, how to study it and illustrates a
step-by-step methodology for sociology. Weber also provides us with a valuable insight on
what is interpretive sociology and compares and contrasts it with other disciplines and
schools of thought.

Weber says, Sociology is a science that undertakes an interpretive understanding of social

action and thereby with a causal explanation of its course and consequences, arrives at an
analysis. “Action” is when a subjective meaning is attached to an individual’s behaviour.
This subjective meaning can be both overt or covert. It may be very evident to others or not
evident at all. An action can be considered “social” as long as its subjective meaning is
oriented toward the behaviour of others. Weber then goes on to explain the definition of
meaning. According to him, meaning can be of two kinds. First, it may refer to an actual
existing meaning in a concrete case of a particular actor, a set of actors or an average of
actors. The second type of meaning refers to a theoretical or pure type of subjective meaning.
This pure type of meaning is when no concrete actor but a hypothetical actor or a set of
hypothetical actors is being discussed. The author emphasises that neither of the meanings,
concrete or theoretical, are morally “correct” or “true”. This is what separates the empirical
sciences of action, such as sociology and history, from the categorical disciplines in the area,
such as jurisprudence, logic, ethics, and aesthetics, which aim to determine the “true” and
“valid meanings attached to their objects of investigation. When we are trying to study the
meaning behind an action, it is in fact true that the line behind a meaningful action and
reactive behaviour is very difficult to draw in an empirical sense. Weber says, a substantial
portion of sociological analysis involves dealing with behaviour that is extremely complex to
understand with accuracy.

The author then tells us how the understandable and non-understandable components of a
social action are intermingled. Weber explains to us the concept of interpretation and says
that the interpretation of meaning, such as scientific meaning, attempts to attain verifiable
accuracy. This kind of certainty is made possible because the conditions can be controlled or
stabilized. Such an understanding can be classified as logical or mathematical. On the other
hand, while studying human action, we must understand that the aspect of emotion is also
taken into account. It is unfeasible to strive for verifiable accuracy when studying human
action because humans are extremely complex beings. In order to be able to analyse human
lives, it is essential to have a different kind of rationality i.e., empathic or appreciative
rationality which focuses on the qualitative understanding of things. According to Weber, it is
requisite to create a distinction between different kinds of rationality. Therefore, it is possible
to have an analysis based on empathic accuracy. Empathic accuracy is when one
sympathetically involves oneself in the emotional context of a situation. The author then goes
to explain the different parameters for judging what rationality is, mathematic rationality and
empathic rationality. It is impracticable to apply mathematical rationality when studying
humans which is why is necessary to employ empathic rationality. It is without question that
the highest degree of rationality is attainable through mathematical rationality and there are
several times when humans apply mathematical rationality. However, we must not forget that
most of the times, humans are behaving with a lower degree of accuracy with respect to
mathematical rationality. Humans for the most part of their time are acting in a way which is
not evident of a high degree of verifiable certainty. Humans, therefore, act, and we as
sociologists try to interpret that action. There is a lower degree of certainty depending upon
the kind of rationality that has been employed. What adds to this complexity even further is if
one’s ultimate values do not match with that of their respondents, it will prove to be even
more difficult for one to interpret the respondents’ actions. Therefore, employing empathic
understanding will be even more troublesome in this particular situation.

Yet another complication is that we ourselves as sociologists are emotional beings and are
susceptible to emotional reactions. Weber says, it is impossible to absolutely put aside these
emotions and our emotional experience does have an impact over how we interpret the action
or the meaning behind someone’s actions. The author explains that rather than dismissing
these emotions, we need to include these emotional reactions into our analysis. In order to do
this, it is necessary to deal with theoretical meaning or action and construct a theoretical
device. In this theoretical device, rational actions of all kinds are included and ‘irrational’
actions or actions that not understandable to mathematical rationality are treated as
deviations. The construction of a purely rational course of action is a tool to the sociologist
which is called an ‘ideal type’. An ideal type is a theoretical construct that allows the
sociologist to access social phenomena in a clear and intelligible manner. The author explains
the next step after having constructed a rational course of action, which is to treat it not as
‘normal’ but only as an ideal type and observe the factors that are leading to the deviation and
the factors other than rationality that influence human behaviour. This provides us with a
better understanding of social action and how an actual course of action is influenced by
irrational factors such as emotions. It can be understood that sociology does not treat
irrational or behaviour not understanding to mathematical rationality as something which
cannot be denied. Hence, it can be said that sociology does not have a rationalistic bias.

Weber says that it is imperative to discuss the method of understanding itself. Understanding
is of two kinds, direct observational understanding of emotional reactions and explanatory
understanding. The author states that the direct observational method of understanding
emotional actions is more inclined towards a mathematical understanding of actions
According to him, this understanding of actions is not sufficient and it is a must that we move
beyond it. There is yet another way of understanding irrational actions, i.e., explanatory
understanding. Explanatory understanding involves understanding the motive behind the
actor’s actions. One way of understanding the motivation behind an actor’s motivation, it is
necessary to place the action of the actor in a more inclusive context which allows one to
understand the cause of the action. Therefore, we have to understand the motive in order to
comprehend the true affects which determine the true course of a person’s behaviour.

Weber emphasises studying the sequence of the actions that have taken place as an action
cannot be studied in isolation. It is essential that the course of action be understood, and
therefore attach a subjective meaning behind that course of action. For instance, economists
work on the principle of understanding the course of action under extremely rational
conditions. Economic principles are decided strictly by keeping in mind the rational factors
unaffected by emotions whereas sociology has already formulated an ideal type of rational
action. It studies not just the hypothetical but the actual course of action and how its
influenced by emotional factors and other subjective meanings. Therefore, it deviates from
the pure ideal type of rationality. The author says that both economics and sociology work on
the principle of approximation and regardless of how much we try, this process will always
remain partial and is not going to have a finality. It is because we cannot understand the
motive behind someone’s actions in totality when the actor herself may not understand it in
totality or may not be aware of all the various motives that are driving her action that this
process will always remain an approximation. What complicates this further is the nature of
situations we encounter. For instance, situations that look very similar to each other may have
very different motivations. Weber says, it is also extremely difficult to understand everything
in totality is because humans are not only guided by numerous motivations but sometimes
these motivations are conflicting.

Verification is an important aspect of Weber’s thesis and according to the author, verification
is something which allows us to put forward our results with some amount of relative
accuracy. Comparative sociology is what we can use in our process of verification and it
often acts as a thread between functionalist and interpretive sociology. Weber uses the
comparative method in order to arrive at a verification of one’s interpretation of one’s
analysis. The comparative method should enable one to explore a chain of motivation so that
a course of action can be worked out and can eventually lead us to arrive at a causal analysis.
In order to understand the concept of causal analysis. It is essential to understand the concept
of motive. Weber says, the term ‘motive’ is fundamentally a complex of subjective meanings.
He acknowledges that one action does not have a single motivation rather a complex of
subjective meaning. When the subjective meanings or the motive behind an action is included
in our analysis, it is not complete, however, it becomes subjectively adequate. Furthermore,
we have to move on to the next level of analysis. It is not sufficient to understand at the level
of meaning, it is also extremely essential to understand at the level of causality.

A causal analysis arises when we move away from a particular actor and her subjective
meaning and actions and go to a generalised level of actions and experiences. At this next
level of generalised experiences, there are two levels of analysis. Firstly, at the level of one
particular actor and her meaning and secondly, at the level of a generalised experience of
what people go through. According to Weber, the second level is adequate at the level of
causality and both the levels, in isolation, are incomplete. In order to have a total sociological
interpretation of action, it is necessary to combine the two levels i.e., subjectively adequate
analysis along with causally adequate analysis. On combining the two, it results in a correct
causal interpretation of action. Analysis limited only to the level of meaning will have no
relation with statistical probability, whereas, analysis limited to statistical probability will
have no understanding of a specific individual’s experiences. In addition to this, comparative
sociology allows us to understand the chain of motivation which cannot be fully
comprehended by only including an actor’s subjective meaning. It is necessary to also take
the processes and statistical uniformities into account. Statistical uniformities in turn also
provide us with a classification of the specific types of actions to help us better understand
one specific person’s action.
Weber says, just like statistical uniformities and probabilities, subjective experiences are also
important and should be taken into account. On removing the subjective motivation from our
analysis, we reduce the study of sociology to nothing but a study of bio-chemical reactions
i.e., organic analogy. The author explains that the method employed by the organic school of
sociology treats the society as a whole and its individuals and institutions as its part. Weber
emphasises the importance of studying the functionalist perspective as it paints an extremely
practical picture of all the occurrences in society in fine detail. Simultaneously, Weber says
that the cognitive and intellectual value of functionalism is highly exaggerated. To merely
demonstrate the functional relationships in a society cannot be the objective of sociology. The
method of organic sociology cannot be employed when studying the actions that take place in
society. Weber says, functionalists help us understand that there are parts in the society,
however, it is not specified how the differentiation of these parts occur. Many questions arise
when talking about the functionalist theory such as if these parts are mechanically performing
survival functions and what makes the individual act in a way that is contributing to the
survival value of the group. Therefore, in order to have a meaningful sociological analysis,
we need to take account of an individual whereas the functionalists place an individual at the
disposal of the collective pressure. According to the author, we must not treat individuals as
constantly striving to correspond to the collective pressure and instead look at them as people
who consciously determine their course of action. Individuals associate a rationality behind
their actions even when they are acting as part of a group. Weber says, organic analogy does
not take account of the individual and focuses on the collective instead, bearing in mind that
an individual acts as a reflection of the collective.

Having looked at Weber’s criticism of organic analogy and the functionalist theory, we
realise that Weber’s methodology in turn has also been scrutinized by functionalists and other
schools of thought. These other schools of thought that primarily focus on macrosociology
have argued that Weber’s methodology, often times, becomes too individualistic. It has been
felt that it is unfeasible to understand the larger functioning of society when so much of the
focus is drawn towards the individual. To the other schools of thought, Weber appears too
interested in the individual rather than the larger sociological patterns. Weber responds to this
criticism by stating that it would be a grave error to think that his methodology considers only
the individual and can observe nothing about the larger sociological patterns. He says that it
needs to be understood that whenever we talk about empiricism, it necessarily begins from
the individual and Weber’s study is trying to comprehend the motives that determine and lead
the individual to participate in communities in the society in a way that the society can exist.
In Weber’s opinion, the analysis undertaken by functionalists tells us nothing about the
individual’s determination and motives to participate in the community in a way that
facilitates the functioning of society. The author emphasises the importance of understanding
the relation between means and end i.e., it is crucial to understand how people engage in
repetitive behaviour in society.

Weber then goes on to challenge the notion that psychology is the ultimate foundation for
studying the individual and feels that it is highly erroneous to think that. He contradicts the
opinion that just because sociology studies the individual, psychology should be regarded as
the foundation for sociological interpretation. Weber elucidates that the fundamental
difference between sociology and psychology is that psychology employs specific methods
which differentiate between physical and psychic phenomena. Psychology looks at psychic
phenomena not only as something that is related to physical, chemical and biological factors
but also prescribes a path of treatment for the psychic phenomena that are adhering to the
path of normalcy or usual human behaviour. Sociologists, on the other hand, do not look at
human behaviour as something that needs to be changed or fit into a certain kind of pattern.
Sociology does not look at psychological phenomena and study its biological cause. Instead
of looking at any unusual behaviour as irrational, the sociologist looks at it as yet another of
rationality. The ultimate objective of sociology is to formulate certain generalised
uniformities and concepts by studying human behaviour. The author says that even these
generalised uniformities do not exclude the individual.

Weber then goes on to compare and contrast sociology with yet another discipline, i.e.,
history. History is also in interested in studying a certain course of action as well as causal
analysis. It is due to this reason that history can prove to be extremely valuable to a
sociologist, although it is outside of a historian’s domain to study a concrete individual. What
sets sociology apart from history is that a historian is more inclined towards studying the
generalised patterns of behaviour and the cause and effect of behaviour as it has unfolded in
the past, however, history does not analyse an actual concrete individual in an ongoing sense.
A sociologist does not limit herself to studying just the causal effect, in which history can be
of help to her analysis. Although, it will not be sufficient for a sociologist, as history does not
study a specific individual. Finally, sociologists can help concretise the abstract character of
history in the present. Historians are causally adequate; however, they are not adequate at the
level of meaning. Sociology can prove to be useful to historians by providing to them
adequacy at the level of meaning so that it can result into a combination of causally adequate
and adequacy at the level of meaning forming a causally correct explanation. History can also
serve sociology by constructing ideal types.

Ideal types are always hypothetical or abstract. The more unrealistic or abstract an ideal type
is, the more comprehensible it would be to understand a concrete individual’s actions because
it allows one to focus on the deviations from the ideal type. These ideal types assist one in
perceiving the personal element that exists in a specific individual. Yet another reason to
construct these ideal types is because they allow one to draw a relation between objectivity
and subjectivity. Weber says, while studying human behaviour, it must be kept in mind that
when humans are engaging in social action, a majority of their actions are performed in the
state of half consciousness. An extremely miniscule proportion of the actions performed by
individuals have a clear understanding of their subjective meaning. The question arises as to
how you can analyse this action when the individuals themselves do not have an awareness
about what they are doing for a majority of their actions. Therefore, in order to study this
kind of behaviour keeping aside one’s own subjectivity into it is impossible according to
Weber. He emphasises that it is important to focus on these subjective meanings behind
actions.

Weber then continues to explain that social action can be both active or passive as any action
that is oriented towards others is considered a social action. This action could be directed to
an indefinite plurality of people. On the other hand, an action will be considered non-social if
it is directed towards an inanimate object, which reiterates that not every human action has a
social character. Furthermore, Weber classifies social action four broad types: instrumentally
rational action (zweckrational), value rational action (wertrational), affectual action and
traditional action.

The first type of action being instrumentally rational action is where humans calculate the
course of their action in an extremely rational manner. It is a rationally pursued course to
arrive at certain calculated ends. Instrumentally rational action has the highest degree of
verifiable rationality. As opposed to this, value rational action, which is the second type of
action, is not determined by rationally verifiable or mathematically verifiable motivation but
is the result of one’s underlying values or beliefs in something. These values could be ethical,
aesthetic, religious and so on. The next type of social action is affectual in which the
underlying motivation has an emotional character and points to the actor’s state of feelings.
Lastly, traditional action is a custom or habit of customs and comes about as a result of
ingrained habituation. Weber states that the four types of actions are merely ideal types and
do not exist in pure form in real life. A single action could be a combination of the before
stated actions which means that there is a combination of motivations taking place in real life.
The author goes on to say that a considerable proportion of our everyday actions is a result of
habituated action. According to Weber, a traditional action may appear to be a reactive type
of imitated action at times. However, when we take a close look at this kind of traditional
action, it is noticeable that a huge part of one’s own reasoning has been incorporated into it.

Hence, we understand that Weber does not dismiss any action as irrational, rather, he presents
a possibility of various kinds of actions to fall within the realms of different kinds of
rationality. He talks about we make use of different kinds of realities in our actions performed
in everyday life, which can sometimes be alternative or even conflicting. Therefore, it is not
correct to dismiss any kind of action as irrational. Therefore, Weber concludes by explaining
that it is necessary to make room for different kinds of actions even when we are taking our
own selves into account. Finally, Weber claims that following this method is how one can
deal with one’s own biases.

Weber’s theories have also been subject to some scrutiny by sociologists such as Talcott
Parsons who criticises Weber for putting too much emphasis on the element of voluntary
subjective meaning of the actor. Parsons considers the action of an actor involuntary which
means that behaviour is directed by meanings attached by actors to things and people. On the
other hand, A. Schultz criticises Weber for not adequately elucidating meaningful action
because if meaning is so separate from the actor, it becomes an objective category imposed
by sociologists. Lastly, P.S. Cohen is of the opinion that Weber’s classification of social
action is confusing due to an increased focus on the actor’s subjective meaning.

To conclude, regardless of the above stated imperfections, Weber’s methodology of studying

social action has acted as a source of great inspiration to sociologists of subsequent
generations.

Bibliography

Weber, Max, 1978, Economy and Society: An outline of Interpretive Sociology, Vol. 1,
University of California Press, Basic Concepts, Pages 4-26