Max Weber’s Ideal Type
Sociology Honours
In real world, we live in the midst of many aspects of our world. These can be many different types of economy, religion, justice system, art, culture etc. All these come under the ambit of Sociology.
Max Weber, being a pioneer sociologist, thought deeply about the way of evaluating the positives and negatives of the different types, and devised a method to measure them. This is how the concept of ‘Ideal Type’ was born. The word ‘ideal’ is not to be confused with the general way we use it in our daily conversations. Weber’s use of ‘Ideal’ relates more to the word ‘idea’, than ‘ideal’ (meaning perfect, and respectable).
Max Weber’s ‘Ideal type’ is a yardstick of measuring the strengths and weaknesses of a certain system.
Definition of ‘ideal type’
‘Ideal type’ is an analytical construct that serves the investigator as measuring rod to ascertain similarities as well as deviations in concrete cases.”
Example – Let’s take the case of the Hindu religion. A true Hindu treats the Vedas and the Upanishads as the prmary scriptures. However, the similarity ends here. Hinduism is divided into four different sects. These are Shaivism, Vaishnavism, Shaktism, and Smratism. These sects are further divided into many sub-sects. So, how do we assess the purity and authenticity of the sects vis-à-vis each other? To do this, we must have a yardstick where the most authentic and ancient Hindu is taken as the benchmark, and the different sects are judged on the basis of their practices and placed a few notches below the Ideal Type (or the authentic Hinduism). Max Weber’s ‘Ideal Type’ is, therefore, a ideological construct meant to calibrate Sociological practices and History.
Let’s take anther example. Countries like Norway, Sweden, France, Britain, and the United States are all capitalist countries, but their capitalistic practices differ substantially from one another. In France, social welfare is given much more importance than in the U.S. In treatment of minorities, approach to universal education, type of government, and fiscal practices, these countries follow their own systems and look so different from one another. However, they are all grouped as capitalist countries. This is where Weber felt his Ideal Type construct can help in evaluating the different countries as followers of capitalism.
Cautions to be exercised in using Max Weber’s Ideal Type’ as a tool
Curiously, Max Weber had his own doubts about the correctness of ‘ideal Type’ concept. He admitted that
1. The Ideal types are not hypothesis.
2. They do not imply or state an ethical idea.
3. They do not state an average type.
4. They do not exhaust reality. This means they do not correspond exactly to any empirical instances.
Main characteristics of Ideal Type
1. Ideal Types are mental constructs, and so, subjective in nature
2. Since Ideal Types are mental constructs, they do not correspond to reality.
3. Ideal types are theoretical tools
4. Ideal Types are not the instruments to denote statistical average.
5. Ideal Types signify ‘pure’ or ‘abstract’ types and do not indicate that is normatively desirable.
6. Ideal Types are not hypotheses.
7. It is essentially a one-sided model.
8. Ideal types do not provide an exhaustive description of a social phenomenon.
9. Ideal Types are not rigid and fixed thins, but subjected to change.
According to Max Weber, the four different Ideal types of social action are
1. Goal – rational
2. Value – rational
3. Affective
4. Traditional
Max Weber classified the Ideal types as
1. Rational behavior
2. The bureaucratic organization
3. Charismatic authority
4. Value-free science
5. The protestant ethic
6. The spirit of capitalism