Which theorist argued that verstehen was needed in research

Colonists argued that the Stamp Act was not proper because it was a form of taxation without representation. This was a tax set up by the British Parliament to tax goods the Colonists needed.

They argued because Achilles needed Agememnon to give back Chriseis to her father, Chrises, to make the god Apollo happy. And after Agememnon agreed he threatened to take Achilles' war prize, Briseis.

Research is the best option for you to determine what is needed to start your business. Local library and online research are a good way to start. Determine if any classes or exams are needed. If licenses are needed determine how you are to obtain them. Care about the common good even if they were doing well personally. Many people argued that the United States needed an Asian outpost for trade and military purposes.

Others argued that if the United States annexed the Philippines, it would be a betrayal of the principals of self-rule. Information resource for small and home business research, start up It describes the skills needed, the training available, This introductory guide outlines the kinds of questions your market research should address.

The research that is needed to do before buying a cheap digital camera is the research about the specifications of the digital camera as well as the price and budget range that is needed to buy the cheap digital camera. Sonar mapping is needed for ocean research patterns. Stem cells. Due to my research they lived where there was something that needed to be protected.

They argued that African leaders were violent dictators and needed to be overthrown. Log in. Social Sciences. Study now. See Answer. Best Answer. Study guides. Science 20 cards. Who is known as the first African American scientist.

What is Luis Alvarez's cultural background. What was Benjamin Banneker's ethnic background. Which scientist used mathematical knowledge to calculate the exact measurement of the meter. According to the "iron law" democracy and large scale organization are incompatible. Any large organization, Michels pointed out, is faced with problems of coordination that can be solved only by creating a bureaucracy. A bureaucracy, by design, is hierarchically organized to achieve efficiency--many decisions that have to be made every day cannot be made by large numbers of people in an efficient manner.

The effective functioning of an organization therefore requires the concentration of much power in the hands of a few people. The organizational characteristics that promote oligarchy are reinforced by certain characteristics of both leaders and members of organizations. People achieve leadership positions precisely because they have unusual political skill; they are adept at getting their way and persuading others of the correctness of their views.

Once they hold high office, their power and prestige is further increased. Leaders have access and control over information and facilities that are not available to the rank-and-file. They control the information that flows down the channels of communication. Leaders are also strongly motivated to persuade the organization of the rightness of their views, and they use all of their skills, power and authority to do so.

By design of the organization, rank and file are less informed than their "superiors. Therefore, the rank and file tend to look to the leaders for policy directives and are generally prepared to allow leaders to exercise their judgment on most matters.

Leaders also have control over very powerful negative and positive sanctions to promote the behavior that they desire. They have the power to grant or deny raises, assign workloads, fire, demote and that most gratifying of all sanctions, the power to promote. Most important, they tend to promote junior officials who share their opinions, with the result that the oligarchy become a self-perpetuating one.

Therefore, the very nature of large scale organization makes oligarchy within these organizations inevitable. Bureaucracy, by design, promotes the centralization of power in the hands of those at the top of the organization. While it is easy to see oligarchy within formal organizations, Weber's views on the inevitability of oligarchy within whole societies are a little more subtle. The social structure of modern society has become dominated by bureaucracy.

Bureaucracies are necessary to provide the coordination and control so desperately needed by our complex society and huge populations. But while modern societies are dependent on formal organization, bureaucracy tends to undermine both human freedom and democracy in the long-run. While government departments are theoretically responsible to the electorate, this responsibility is almost entirely fictional.

It often happens, in fact, that the electorate and even the congress do not even know what these bureaucracies are doing. Government departments have grown so numerous, so complex, that they cannot be supervised effectively. The modern era is one of interest-group politics, in which the degree of participation of the ordinary citizen in the forging of political positions is strictly limited. Our impact on political decision making depends, to a large extent, on our membership in organizational structures.

The power of these groups, in turn, depend in large part on such organizational characteristics as size of membership; and commitment of membership to the goals of the organization; and wealth of the organization. But it is through organization that we lose control of the decision making process. Those on top of bureaucratic hierarchies can command vast resources in pursuit of their interests. This power is often unseen and unregulated, which gives the elite at the top of these hierarchies vast social, economic, and political power.

The problem is further compounded by huge corporations, economic bureaucracies that have tremendous impact over our lives, an impact over which we have little control. Our control over corporations is hardly even fictional any longer. Not only do these economic bureaucracies affect us directly, they also affect our governments--organizations supposedly designed to regulate them. To quote Peter Blau on this topic: "The most pervasive feature that distinguishes contemporary life is that it is dominated by large, complex, and formal organizations.

Our ability to organize thousands and even millions of men in order to accomplish large-scale tasks--be they economic, political, or military--is one of our greatest strengths. The possibility that free men become mere cogs in the bureaucratic machines we set up for this purpose is one of the greatest threats to our liberty.

Freund , 18 defines it as "the organization of life through a division and coordination of activities on the basis of exact study of men's relations with each other, with their tools and their envionmnet, for the purpose of achieving greater efficiency and productivity. In turn, these changes in social structure have changed human character through changing values, philosophies, and beliefs. Such superstructural norms and values as individualism, efficiency, self-discipline, materialism, and calculability all of which are subsumed under Weber's concept of zweckrational have been encouraged by the bureaucratization process.

Bureaucracy and rationalization were rapidly replacing all other forms of organization and thought. They formed a stranglehold on all sectors of Western society:. Technocratic thinking can be contrasted with wertrational, which involves the assessment of goals and means in terms of ultimate human values such as social justice, peace, and human happiness. Weber maintained that even though a bureaucracy is highly rational in the formal sense of technical efficiency, it does not follow that it is also rational in the sense of the moral acceptability of its goals or the means used to achieve them.

Nor does an exclusive focus on the goals of the organization necessarily coincide with the broader goals of society as a whole. It often happens that the single-minded pursuit of practical goals can actually undermine the foundations of the social order Elwell What is good for the bureaucracy is not always good for the society as a whole--and often, in the long term, is not good for the bureaucracy either. The system has a different morality as a group than the people do as individuals, which permits it to willfully produce ineffective or dangerous products, deal dictatorially and often unfairly with suppliers, pay bribes for business, abrogate the rights of employees by demanding blind loyalty to management or tamper with the democratic process of government through illegal political contributions" J.

Wright , De Lorean goes on to speculate that this immorality is connected to the impersonal character of business organization. Morality, John says, has to do with people. Never once while I was in General Motors management did I hear substantial social concern raised about the impact of our business on America, its consumers or the economy" J.

Wright , One of the most well-documented cases of the irrationality factor in business concerns the Chevrolet Corvair Watergate, the IRS, the Post Office, recent elections, and the Department of Defense provide plenty of government examples. Introduced to the American Market in , several compromises between the original design and what management ultimately approved were made for financial reasons. Wright As a result, a couple of the prototypes rolled over on the test tracks and it quickly became apparent that GM had a problem J.

Wright ; R. De Lorean again takes up the story. An extreme case of rationalization was the extermination camps of Nazi Germany. The goal was to kill as many people as possible in the most efficient manner, and the result was the ultimate of dehumanization--the murder of millions of men, women and children.

The men and women who ran the extermination camps were, in large part, ordinary human beings. They were not particularly evil people. Most went to church on Sundays; most had children, loved animals and life.

William Shirer comments on business firms that collaborated in the building and running of the camps: "There had been, the records show, some lively competition among German businessmen to procure orders for building these death and disposal contraptions and for furnishing the lethal blue crystals.

The firm of I. Topf and Sons of Erfurt, manufacturers of heating equipment, won out in its bid for the crematoria at Auschwitz. The story of its business enterprise was revealed in a voluminous correspondence found in the records of the camp. A letter from the firm dated February 12, , gives the tenor:.

Farben Shirer Their product could do the most effective job for the least possible cost, so they got the contract. Shirer summarizes the organization of evil. But the records of the courts leave no doubt of the complicity of a number of German businessmen, not only the Krupps and the directors of I.

In sum, the extermination camps and their suppliers were models of bureaucratic efficiency using the most efficient means available at that time to accomplish the goals of the Nazi government.

But German corporations went beyond supplying the government with the machinery of death, some actively participated in the killing process. Farben was one of the first great corporate conglomerates. Its executives merely carried the logic of corporate rationality to its ultimate conclusion Farben's synthetic rubber Buna plants at Auschwitz are a good example of the relationship between corporate profits and Nazi goals.

The construction work required contractors and subcontractors, housing had to be built for the corporate personnel, barracks for the workers. SS guards supplied by the state would administer punishment when rules were broken. The workers at the plants were treated as all other inmates in the camp. The only exception was one of diet, workers in the plants would receive an extra ration of "Buna soup" to maintain "a precisely calculated level of productivity" Rubenstein , Nor was any of this hidden from corporate executives; they were full participants in the horror.

With an almost inexhaustible supply of workers, the corporation simply worked their slave laborers to death. The fact that individual officials have specialized and limited responsibility and authority within the organization means that they are unlikely to raise basic questions regarding the moral implications of the overall operation of the organization.

Under the rule of specialization, society becomes more and more intricate and interdependent, but with less common purpose. The community disintegrates because it loses its common bond. The emphasis in bureaucracies is on getting the job done in the most efficient manner possible. Consideration of what impact organizational behavior might have on society as a whole, on the environment, or on the consumer simply does not enter into the calculation.

The problem is further compounded by the decline of many traditional institutions such as the family, community, and religion, which served to bind pre-industrial man to the interests of the group. Rationalization causes the weakening of traditional and religious moral authority secularization ; the values of efficiency and calculability predominate.

In an advanced industrial-bureaucratic society, everything becomes a component of the expanding machine, including human beings Elwell Wright Mills, whose social theory was strongly influenced by Weber, describes the problem:. Both men agree that modern methods of organization have tremendously increased the effectiveness and efficiency of production and organization and have allowed an unprecedented domination of man over the world of nature.

They also agree that the new world of rationalized efficiency has turned into a monster that threatens to dehumanize its creators. But Weber disagrees with Marx's claim that alienation is only a transitional stage on the road to man's true emancipation" Coser , Weber believed that the alienation documented by Marx had little to do with the ownership of the mode of production, but was a consequence of bureaucracy and the rationalization of social life.

Marx asserted that capitalism has led to the "expropriation" of the worker from the mode of production. He believed that the modern worker is not in control of his fate, is forced to sell his labor and thus his self to private capitalists.

Weber countered that loss of control at work was an inescapable result of any system of rationally coordinated production Coser Weber argued that men could no longer engage in socially significant action unless they joined a large-scale organization. In joining organizations they would have to sacrifice their personal desires and goals to the impersonal goals and procedures of the organization itself Coser By doing so, they would be cut off from a part of themselves, they would become alienated.

Socialism and capitalism are both economic systems based on industrialization--the rational application of science, observation, and reason to the production of goods and services. Both capitalism and socialism are forms of a rational organization of economic life to control and coordinate this production.

Socialism is predicated on government ownership of the economy to provide the coordination to meet the needs of people within society. If anything, Weber maintained, socialism would be even more rationalized, even more bureaucratic than capitalism.

And thus, more alienating to human beings as well Gerth and Mills , The problem which besets us now is not: how can this evolution be changed? It is perhaps fitting to close with a quote from Max engaged in speculation on the other future possibilities of industrial systems. While Weber had a foreboding of an "iron cage" of bureaucracy and rationality, he recognized that human beings are not mere subjects molded by sociocultural forces. We are both creatures and creators of sociocultural systems.

And even in a sociocultural system that increasingly institutionalizes and rewards goal oriented rational behavior in pursuit of wealth and material symbols of status there are other possibilities: "No one knows who will live in this cage in the future, or whether at the end of this tremendous development entirely new prophets will arise, or there will be a great rebirth of old ideas and ideals or, if neither, mechanized petrification embellished with a sort of convulsive self-importance.

Also see Sociocultural Systems: Principles of Structure and Change to learn how his insights contribute to a more complete understanding of modern societies. Aron, R. Main Currents in Sociological Thought Vol. New York: Anchor Books. Coser, L. Masters of Sociological Thought 2nd ed. Elwell, F. It has its roots in the works of Emile Durkheim, who was particularly fascinated in how social order is feasible or how society remains comparatively stable. Emile Durkheim was a well-known sociologist famous for his views on the formation of society.

His work centered on how traditional and modern communities developed and function. Durkheim's theories were founded on the theory of social facts, described as the standards, values, and structures of community.

After the truce she helped found the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom, working as president from until her death in Vilified during World War I for her opponent to American involvement, Addams a decade later had become a national hero and Chicago's preeminent citizen. German philosopher and revolutionary socialist Karl Marx issued The Communist Manifesto and Das Kapital, anticapitalist works that form the foundation of Marxism.

Marx thought that all historical change was made by a set of class conflicts between the bourgeoisie haves and the commonality have-nots. Capitalism defines an economic system in which the means of production are privately owned.

Social Studies , Answers: 2. Answer from: jeonkara. Max Weber. They believe that anyone in the society has a role to fulfill in order to make the society functional if not, die. Emile Durkheim. Jane Addams 6 The answer is Karl Marx.

Answer from: mochoa4. Answer 1 B Max WeberExplanation: Weber is best remembered for his research linking economic sociology and the sociology of religion, elaborated in his book The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, in which he stated that moderate Protestantism was one of the primary elective connections connected with the inflation in the Western world of market.

Answer 2 B False Explanation: Ideal type, also identified as pure type, is a typological article most closely correlated with sociologist Max Weber. Answer 3 A True Explanation: The functionalist perspective, also named functionalism, is one of the significant theoretical prospects in sociology.