The Max Weber’s Theory of Social Action
Max Weber conceived of sociology as a comprehensive science of social action. His primary focus was on
the subjective meanings that human actors attach to their actions in their mutual orientations within
specific socio-historical contexts. Coser says, “In his analytical focus on individual human actors he
differed from many of his predecessors whose sociology was conceived in socio-cultural terms”.
Max Weber began with the idea of social action to make of sociology a scientific enquiry. Thus the idea
of action is central to Max Weber’s sociology. For Weber the combined qualities of “action” and
“meaning” were the central facts for sociology’s scientific analysis.
Weber defined sociology is, “the interpretative understanding of social action in order thereby to arrive
at causal explanation of its courses and effects.” Action in Weber’s analysis is all human behaviour to
which an actor attaches subjective meaning. According to Weber “Action is social, in sofar as by virtue of
the subjective meaning attached to it by the acting individual it takes account of the behaviour of others
and thereby oriented in its course.”
Weber was particularly interested in how social action is often conceptualized by social actors in terms
of means-ends chains. For instance, a large bureaucratic organization will organize the activity of social
individuals by assigning each worker a particular role in a hierarchy.
The responsibilities associated with this role are rules, or norms, that serve as means to the ends served
by the bureaucracy. These norms serve to make organized social action possible; that is they routinize
and formalize social interaction among individuals who, for whatever reason are committed to serving
the organization.
According to Weber, there are three key terms:
(i) Deuten
(ii) Verstehen
(iii) Erklaren
Deuten: To interpret, to grasp the significance or subjective meaning.
Verstehen: To comprehend, to organize the subjective meaning of human actions into concepts.
Erklaren:To explain causally or reveal the constants of human behaviour.
The primary task of sociology is the study of social action. Sociology studies the different aspects of
human behaviour particularly meaning, purpose and value of the human behaviour. Max Weber
observes that social action is that action of an individual which is somehow influenced by the action and
behaviour of other individuals and by which it is modified and its direction is determined.
Weber writes, “A correct causal interpretation of concrete course of action, is arrived at when the overt
action and the motives have both been correctly apprehended and at the same time their relation has
become meaningfully comprehensible.”
Characteristics of Social Action:
The significant characteristics of Weber’s ideas are as follows:
1. Social action may be influenced by an action of past, present or future.
2. Social action presupposes the existence of other individual and some action by him.
3. Necessity of subjective meaning.
4. It is oriented in its course.
Weber’s focus on the mutual orientation of social actors and on the “understandable” motives of their
actions was anchored in methodological considerations, which account for much of the distinctiveness
of his approach. Social action may be influenced by the action of past, present and future. So social
action is a result or a modification of some action of other person or persons.
Social action presupposes the existence of other individual and some action by him. This means there
can be no social action in isolation. Therefore social action is possible if there is another human being
whose action or behaviour is prompting to the giving individual to act in a particular manner.
In a social act it is necessary that it should have subjective meaning. A blind imitation without any
understanding of the nature of act being imitated is not social action. Weber’s primary focus was on the
subjective meanings that human actors attach to their actions in their mutual orientations within
specific socio-historical contexts.
Behaviour devoid of such meaning falls outside the purview of sociology. “Action is Social” Weber says.
According to Weber, it is action when man assigns a certain meaning to his conduct and the action is
social when, by the meaning he gives it, it relates to the behaviour of other persons and is oriented
towards their behaviour.
For Weber human action is social in so far as “the acting individual attaches a subjective meaning to it.”
Mere behaviour becomes action when it derives dealings with others and when it is meaningful; that is
oriented in its course. The basic requirement is that the actor is aware of what he or she is doing which
can be analyzed in terms of their intentions, motives and feelings as they are experienced.
Social Actions at a Glance:
1. Rationally-Purposeful action:
It is the social action that is instrumentally oriented. It occurs when the ends of action are seen as means
to higher, taken-for-granted ends.
2. Value-rational action:
It occurs when individuals use effective means to achieve goals that are set by their values.
3. Affective action:
Emotional and impulsive action that is an end in itself.
4. Traditional action:
It occurs when the ends and means of social action are fixed by custom and tradition. Action is so
habitual that it is taken for granted. This classification of types of action serves Weber in two ways. It
permits him to make systematic typological distinctions, for example between types of authority and
also provides a basis for his investigation of the course of western historical development.
Raymond Aron rightly sees Weber’s work as “the paradigm of a sociology which is both historical and
systematic.” Weber was primarily concerned with modern western society, in which as he saw it,
behaviour had come to be dominated increasingly by goal-oriented rationality, whereas in earlier
periods it tended to be motivated by tradition, affect or value oriented rationality.
Stages of Social Action:
Weber has described various stages of social action relating to various types.
These are:
1. Rational-purposeful stage 2. Valuational stage 3. Emotional stage 4. Traditional stage
Rational-purposeful stage: In this stage the actions covered are primarily guided by reason and
discrimination. The pursuit of goals is a corollary of the facts; the rational choice involves consciousness
of ends or goals.
Valuational stage: Religious and ethical actions come under this category. In this stage the actions
prevailing, are pertaining to values.
Emotional stage: An emotional reaction to the action of others comes under this stage. Here there is
expression of love, hatred, sympathy, compassion or pity in response to the behaviour of other
individuals prevails.
Traditional stage: This stage is characterised by long standing customs, traditions and usages. So all
those actions, which are guided and determined by customs and traditions are covered under this
category.
Raymond Aron writes the above classification of action has been argued, elaborated and refined:
1. Weber conceives of sociology as a comprehensive science of social action. The typology of actions is
therefore the most abstract level of the conceptual system applicable to the social field.
2. Sociology is a comprehensive science of action. Here comprehension implies an understanding of the
meaning man gives to his conduct. Weber’s aim is to understand the meaning each man gives his own
conduct, so that it becomes essential to the comprehension of subjective meanings to proceed to a
classification of types of conduct.
3. The classification of types of action to a certain extent governs the Weberian interpretation of the
contemporary era. According to Weber the prime characteristic of the world we live in is rationalization.
Rationalization is expressed by a widening of the sphere of zweckrational action, the rational action in
relation to goals. Economic enterprise is rational, so is the control of the state by bureaucracy.
4. The classification of action according to Max Weber may be co-related with the relations of solidarity
or independence between science and politics.
According to Weber, “Interpretative sociology, considers the individuals and his action as the basic unit
as its atom.” The individual is the upper unit and the sole carrier of meaningful conduct. Concepts like
“state,” association, feudalism etc. are certain categories of human interaction.
Hence Weber concludes; “it is the task of sociology to reduce these concepts to understandable action
that is without exception, to the actions of participating individual men.”
When we come to examine Weber’s substantive sociological writings i.e. those writings in which he
actually does sociology, we find that Weber is not a methodological individualist. Turner explains the
contradiction between two themes in Weber’s work well.
The overt emphasis is on the role of the active individual who constructs and creates meaning. The
covert theme is that the ultimate origin of the meanings of actions is to be found in charismatic religious
movements and these absolute values dig their own graves with the inevitable logic of fate. Thus Turner
suggests that, “in fact Weber’s pessimism produces a deterministic sociology in which the intentions of
social actors are overtaken by historical fate.”
Weber coined the concept “social relationship” to describe patterned human interaction which is
intentional, meaningful and symbolic”, Abraham and Morgan wrote, they said, there are six types of
social relations designated as modes of orientation of social action. Weber thought of these as “patterns
of human behaviour” attributable to the recognition of normative expectations.
The six types have been identified and defined by Larson:
1. Usage 2. Custom 3. Rational Orientation 4. Fashion 5. Convention 6. Law.
1. Usage: Described behaviour performed simply to conform to a style of pattern, for example, social
etiquette.
2. Custom: Described habitual practices with roots in antiquity.
3. Rational orientation: Designated that variety of social action which is consequence of actors orienting
themselves to one another on the basis of similar ulterior expectations, for example mutual self-
interest.
4. Fashion: Described social action which is the result of adherence to contemporary fad.
5. Convention:Designated that type of social action performed in recognition of strong moral obligation
in the manner of Sumner’s mores.
6. Law: Described that type of social action performed in recognition of codified expectation and
restriction. Sociology concerns the rationality of individual and collective behaviour. It is the science of
human action “both comprehensive and explicative. Weber has “a kind of existential philosophy.” He
wants to know the manner men live, here and now. According to him sociology is deeply connected with
history and with culture.
Criticisms: Weber’s theory of social action especially his typology of social action has encountered
severe criticisms.
1. Talcott Parsons criticises Weber for stressing too much the element of voluntary subjective meaning
of the actor. For Parsons, the action of an actor is involuntary; it is behaviour directed by the meanings
attached by actors to things and people.
2. A. Schultz criticises Weber for not providing a satisfactory account of meaningful action since if
meaning is too much divorced from the actor it becomes an objective category imposed by the
sociologists.
3. According to P.S. Cohen, Weber’s typology of social action is confusing due to Weber’s emphasis on
subjective meaning of the actor. Cohen explains with an example of traditional action whereby a
commoner pays tribute to his chief because it is customary.
If the commoner can give no other reason for making the payment other than that it has always been so
then the conduct may be treated as non-rational. It may be called rational, if he gives as his reason for
payment that the chief is the father of the people and hence entitled to tribute.
It may be value-rational-the goal of pleasing the chief is a valued end and the means adopted produces
the desired result. It may be goal-rational – the tribute has always been paid because it pleases the chief
and enables one to obtain the favour from him and the failure to pay may displease the chief and induce
him to punish the offender.
To this Weber might reply that whether the commoner can give reason for payment or not, he will make
it because he has considered no alternative. Despite the above shortcomings Weber’s theory of social
action has inspired sociologists of subsequent generations.
Types of Social Action According to Max Weber
Some of the most important types of social action according to max weber are as follows:
At the heart of Weber’s sociology is an investigation of the consequences of types of social action and a
study of how these types of action come into conflict and create tensions for specific individuals. Weber
pointed out that in many traditional societies individuals live highly routinized lives wherein every day
ceremonies are generally seen as ends in themselves.
This type of action is very different from the action of modern individuals who have to adopt a great
many highly specific roles that require them constantly to shift perceptions and allegiances. For the
modern individual the ultimate ends’ of action are often far removed from the specific rules and norms
that guide everyday behaviour. In order to clarify the important differences among types of social action
and differentiate between rational and non-rational action, Weber developed the following typology:
Four major types of social action are distinguished in Weber’s sociology. Men may engage in purposeful
or goal oriented rational action (zweckrational); their rational action may be value-oriented
(wertrational); they may act from emotional or affective motivations, or finally they may engage in
traditional action.
Types of Social Action
1. Rational-purposeful Action:
This action may be rationally expedient if it is based on logical or scientific grounds. This action entails a
complicated plurality of means and ends. The ends of action (for example goals, values) are either taken
as means to the fulfilment of other ends, or are treated as if they are set in concrete. In this way action
becomes purely instrumental.
Example: If we compare two individuals who are trying to maximize their income over the course of a
year, we might find that one person uses far more effective means to achieve this goal than the other.
He might cheat on his tax return, take a second job or sell drugs to workmates. We would describe the
individuals as more purposively rational than one who acquires and keeps less money.
Within the domain of zweck-rational action it is possible to compare the degrees of rationality that
various individuals exhibit. In the above example, it is assumed that all individuals will want to maximise
their income. This goal is fixed and it is also a means to other goals for example buying a new car,
spending vacation in some hill stations, moving around European Countries etc.
Classical economic theory treats individuals as if they were rationally purposeful. According to this
theory, individuals will always try to maximize their utility. According to Weber, action cannot be
meaningful unless it is goal oriented. Rational action in relation to a goal corresponds roughly to Pareto’s
logical action.
It is the action of the engineer who is building a bridge or the General who wants to win a victory. In all
these cases zweckrational action is distinguished by the fact that the actor conceives his goal clearly and
combines means with a view to attaining it.
2. Value-rational Action:
Action is rational in relation to a specific value. This action occurs when individuals use rational – that is
effective means to achieve goals or ends that are defined in terms of subjective meaning. According to
Weber, when individuals are value rational, they make commitments to certain subjective goals and
adopt means that are effective in attaining these ends.
Here, means are chosen for their efficiency but the ends are determined by value. For example, a soldier
laying down his life for the country. His action is not directed towards attaining specific material goal like
wealth. It is for the sake of certain values like honour and patriotism.
Weber’s differentiation between the two basic types of rational action is of greatest importance. The
first is the means- end rationality. The action that is determined by expectations as to the behaviour of
objects in the environment and other human beings. These expectations are used as ‘conditions’ or
means for the attainment of the actors own rationally pursued and calculated ends. The second is value
rationality, or action that is determined by a conscious belief in the value for its own sake of some
ethical, aesthetic, religious or other forms of behaviour, independently of its prospects for success.
3. Affective Action:
Affective action fuses means and ends together so that action becomes emotional and impulsive. Such
action is the antithesis of rationality because the actor concerned cannot make calm, dispassonate
assessment of the relationship between the ends of action and the means that supposedly exist to serve
these ends. Rather the means themselves are emotionally fulfilling and become ends in themselves.
This kind of action results from the emotional state of mind of the actor. If someone is teasing a girl in a
bus, she may get so irritated that she may slap the offending person. She has been provoked so much
that she has reacted violently. In this example, the action is defined not with reference to a goal or
system of values, but by the emotional reaction of an actor placed in a given set of circumstances.
4. Traditional Action:
Traditional action occurs when the ends and the means of action are fixed by custom and tradition. For
example, some so-called primitive societies have very strict rites of succession for group leaders. What is
important about traditional action is that the ends of action are taken for granted and appear to be
natural to the actors concerned because they are unable to comprehend the possibility of alternative
ends.
This is an action which is guided by customs and long standing beliefs which become second nature or
habit. In traditional Indian Society doing ‘pranam’ or ‘namaskar’ to elders is almost second nature
needing no prompting.
