Principles of Macrosociology: Understanding Large-Scale Societal Systems, Study notes of Macrosociology

Download Principles of Macrosociology: Understanding Large-Scale Societal Systems and more Study notes Macrosociology in PDF only on Docsity! 7 Principles of Macrosociology Knowledge is a process of piling up facts; wisdom lies in their simplifi cation. — martin h. fischer Modern macrosociologists still tend to be deeply rooted in the clas- sical social theories of Karl Marx, Émile Durkheim, Max Weber, and Herbert Spencer.1 While many specialists in social theory like to emphasize the diff erences among macrosociological perspectives, the various theories actually share much common ground. They agree, for example, that the sociological world view diff ers from psychology, which puts great emphasis upon early socialization, indi- vidual motivation, and personal control over behaviour. It diff ers from the biological and medical views of human behaviour, which stress physiological and genetic predisposition. All of these factors are important, most sociologists would concede, but there is some- thing more. Human behaviour, attitudes, and beliefs are profoundly aff ected by the groups and organizations in which people interact and the sociocultural system in which they are embedded. But the theories of Marx, Weber, Durkheim, and Spencer—as refi ned and elaborated by many contemporary macro theorists—share a good 8 Sociocultural Systems deal more common ground than even this; they overlap in ways that have until now been minimized or ignored. Macrosociology is the study of large-scale organizations, socio- cultural systems, or the world system of societies. All four of the classical sociologists named above began from a macro perspec- tive. Macrosociology should not be considered just another spe- cialty within sociology. It is not a specialty; it is the holistic view of a sociologist’s subject matter, the overall framework within which the specialties exist. Macro social theory seeks to unite numerous empirical observations and middle-range theories into a single, test- able, explanatory framework. It is important that the fi eld not be taken over by specialists, that macrosociology retain its role as an integrating mechanism to organize and inform the world view of all sociologists. There is a pull toward almost inevitable specialization in the modern world. As knowledge and techniques proliferate, soci- ety responds by breaking them up into supposedly discrete fi elds, encouraging individuals to specialize and ignore the whole. This is a disaster for the social sciences since so many of the disciplines them- selves are based upon the infl uence of the sociocultural system on various parts of that system, and ultimately on individual behaviour and beliefs. A reading of introductory sociology textbooks reveals the curious state of the discipline. The books usually mention the founders of the discipline. Each was a macro-level theorist, concerned with whole sociocultural systems—their origin, maintenance, and change—and how they aff ected human behaviours and beliefs. Our introductory texts briefl y paraphrase these theories, mention how they diff er from one another (confl ict, functionalism, symbolic interaction, etc.), and then largely ignore them as the focus shifts to individual special- ties—stratifi cation, deviance, organizations, medical—within the discipline. What is lost in these textbooks, what has been lost in the discipline itself, is the fact that these macro theories actually have much in common. A close reading of the classical literature, as well as the more recent literature in that tradition, reveals that there is substantial overlap in their analyses, considerable agreement on the Principles of Macrosociology 11 in common. C. Wright Mills (1959, 6–7) outlines three broad ques- tions addressed by classically rooted sociological analysis: (1) What is the overall structure of the society and its component parts? How are these parts interrelated? And how does this structure and dynamic diff er from those of other societies? (2) How is this soci- ety rooted in history? What are its major mechanisms of change? (3) What kinds of men and women are coming to prevail in this society? “In what ways are they selected and formed, liberated and repressed, made sensitive and blunted?” Macrosociology is guided by seven principles in seeking to address Mills’s excellent questions: (1) a pronounced systemic/functional analysis; (2) a view that empha- sizes a strong materialist-behavioural infl uence on social structure; (3) an evolutionary view of change; (4) an emphasis upon the impact of social structure (groups and organizations) on human beliefs, values, and attitudes; (5) true to systems theory form, the reciprocal infl uence of these cultural ideals on structures and material culture; (6) a concern with the endemic inequality within structures; and (7) a rich tradition of comparative historical data that are used to test its generalizations. SYSTEMIC / FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS Although it is often overlooked, downplayed, or so ubiquitous as to go unobserved, the systemic character of all macrosociology simply cannot be denied. It is, indeed, the very defi nition of the sociological enterprise itself. Years ago, I wrote a book that attempted to apply the anthropological theory of cultural materialism as propounded by Marvin Harris (1979) to contemporary American society. The book fi rst outlined Harris’s “universal structure” of sociocultural systems—infrastructure (production and population), structure (primary and secondary groups, with some modifi cation of Harris’s perspective), and superstructure (knowledge base, ideas, religious beliefs, ideologies)—and then explained the dynamics of recent cultural change in terms of the theory. For a variety of reasons, 12 Sociocultural Systems I chose as the working title The System. As a child of the sixties, I had grown up hearing “It’s the system, man” from many of my friends, and it seemed to me that cultural materialism—with its emphasis on systemic change as a result of changes in population and technological development, as well as on the depletion and pol- lution of the environment—refl ected that cry very well. But I also liked the title because the view of society as a system is part and parcel of the sociological enterprise, perhaps so ingrained in the discipline that it is given only passing mention in our texts and then rarely examined.2 In fact, I know of no macrosociologist who does not see society as a system. While some claim that it is more or less organized, or that some parts of the system are more important in determining change than others, all assert its system-like qualities: that diff erent parts of the system aff ect one another and aff ect the whole. A systems perspective teaches one to focus not only on the various components of the system but also on their interconnections and interactions. Demography, production processes, government, economy, and environment cannot be seen in isolation from one another. There are interconnections—feedback loops—that are as important for studying social structure and change as are the vari- ous components themselves. All of the founders, as well as their modern followers, have at least implicitly asserted that society is a system that is focused upon sta- bility and meeting the physical and psychological needs of its popu- lation. Spencer and Durkheim went even further, making explicit the analogy between social and biological systems. The analogy between societies and biological organisms or mechanical systems can be misleading, however, for it calls to mind a perfect coordina- tion and integration of the various parts of the system. This is not the case with sociocultural systems, in which the parts have vary- ing degrees of autonomy and independence from the overall system. Society is a system, but it is an imperfect system. The fact that soci- ety is an imperfect system means that not all of the parts function to strengthen the whole system. Many patterns and behaviours con- tribute nothing to the general welfare of the society, rather serving Principles of Macrosociology 13 the interests and needs of individuals or constituent groups—some of whom have more social, political, and economic power than others. Therefore, not all needs are addressed equally. The fact that society is an imperfect system also means that confl ict is a normal feature of all societies. However, it is still a sociocultural system, and as such there must be enough co-operation among the members of the soci- ety for the system to maintain itself. Sociocultural systems consist of three types of phenomena: mate- rial, structural, and ideational. Material phenomena have a physical presence that can be readily observed: they consist of such observ- able facts as the physical environment, population and its charac- teristics (size, age and sex ratios, birth and death rates), and the technologies used to exploit the physical environment or to control population growth and level. Social structural phenomena refer to all human groups and organizations. At a broad level of abstrac- tion, examples of social structure include government, economic, and family systems. At a level closer to home, social structure refers to observable groups such as families, corporations, educational institutions, the military, and community organizations. Finally, ide- ational components of the sociocultural system comprise the values, norms, ideologies, religious beliefs, and other symbolic items present in all societies. I often think of such cultural items as the (mostly) shared sense of reality that members of a sociocultural system have about the world and their role in it. The basics of this symbolic map of reality that each of us carries in our head are developed in our early socialization and are continually refi ned and shaped throughout our lives in interaction with others. All human societ- ies—prehistorically, historically, and in the present—are made up of these three components. All three aff ect one another as well as the overall sociocultural system. Functional analysis is a natural consequence of thinking of soci- ety as a system. It is simply the analysis of sociocultural phenomena for their eff ects on other phenomena and on the sociocultural system as a whole. The functional orientation has long been implicit in biol- ogy and physiology, whose practitioners also see their subject matter 16 Sociocultural Systems babies, population pressure, or the relaxation of society’s condemna- tion but rather with her pride in who and what she was. Harris was speaking the language of functions; the young lady was speaking of personal motives. Several other points of interest about Harris’s example touch upon the nature of functional analysis. By discussing the relationship between population pressure and attitudes and laws regarding homo- sexuality, Harris was not commenting on the morality of homosexu- ality or on the fairness of the laws condemning the practice; rather, he was claiming only that there is a functional relationship between population level and prohibitions against homosexuality. Nor was Harris saying that population pressure was the only cultural item aff ecting attitudes and laws regarding homosexuality. As a systems theorist, he was well aware of multiple relationships within sociocul- tural systems that included material, structural, and ideational forces. Nor was Harris saying that population pressure was uppermost in the minds of opinion makers in motivating them to ease up on restrictions on and condemnation of homosexuality; he was simply arguing that the functional relationship between population pressure and homo- sexuality created a climate in which a relaxation of the prohibitions fi t with other system changes. Finally, it should be noted that while attitudes and laws condemning homosexuality were once functional for the entire sociocultural system in the West, they were dysfunc- tional to a signifi cant portion of the population, thus creating strain (tension, contradictions), and ultimately overt confl ict, within the system. Population pressure, then, had little to do with the motiva- tion of homosexuals to come out of the closet and openly advocate for equal rights, but it had much to do with the success of this movement. It was when the prohibition was no longer functional for the system as a whole—no longer in the interest of elites to promote population growth or for the masses to have large numbers of children—that the confl ict became active and the relaxation of the prohibitions began.5 There are times, however, when functions and motives are one and the same, and this seems especially true when government is consciously considering reform. Manifest functions are those Principles of Macrosociology 17 objective consequences that are intended by the participants in the system. Latent functions are those consequences that are unintended and often unrecognized by participants. It is through the concept of latent functions that one can begin to understand the seemingly irrational and non-rational qualities of many social practices. Robert Merton ([1948] 1968, 118) uses the Hopi rain dance as an example in this regard. From all outward appearances, the rain dance is a non- rational ceremony whose manifest function, to bring rain to a given area, is clearly not achieved. Thus, the Hopi ceremonials designed to produce abundant rainfall may be labeled a superstitious practice of primitive folk and that is assumed to conclude the matter. It should be noted that this in no sense accounts for the group behavior. It is simply a case of name- calling; it substitutes the epithet “superstition” for an analysis of the actual role of this behavior in the life of the group. Given the concept of latent function, however, we are reminded that this behavior may perform a function for the group, although this func- tion may be quite remote from the avowed purpose of the behavior. If the ceremony is unconnected to its avowed purpose of bringing rain, why then does it persist in Hopi culture? What latent func- tions does it serve for the group? Merton answers (in the tradition of Émile Durkheim) that the dance serves group unity: it fulfi lls “the latent function of reinforcing the group identity by providing occa- sion on which the scattered members of a group assemble to engage in common activity” (118–19). In chapter 2 of this book, we will examine the functions of a growing gross domestic product in a society. The two primary mani- fest functions, of course, are to provide ever greater material wealth to the elites in a society and, through the presumed “trickle down” process, creature comforts to the masses. The latent functions and dysfunctions, as we will see, are legion. The most important advantage to the distinction between latent and manifest functions is that it encourages systemic thinking. Most 18 Sociocultural Systems people seem to think in linear terms: A causes B, and perhaps goes on to aff ect C. Life, however, is rarely that simple. We live in a world of systems—physiological, psychological, sociocultural, biological, and physical: systems that have many parts that not only aff ect one another and the whole but also interpenetrate and aff ect one another. Functional analysis is the elaboration of the systemic character of social life; it is an attempt to account for the web of the world and the infl uence of this web on social behaviour. Functional analysis is an invaluable tool in policy analysis as well. Through functional analysis, lawmakers (and, more importantly, their staff s) as well as pundits and other political observers can anticipate the consequences—manifest and latent, functional and dysfunctional—of laws and social programs. The relevance of functional analysis to governance and self- determination can be seen in the great health care debates in the United States in 2009–10. The functions and dysfunctions—latent and manifest—of the various parts of the health care system have been analyzed and widely discussed in terms of their impacts on one another and on the total sociocultural system. The present system functions to the great benefi t of a few providers, insurance compa- nies (particularly executives), politicians (in the form of campaign contributions), and those wealthy enough to buy into the system, but it has many negative consequences, or dysfunctions, on indus- try, government, and consumers who must absorb the ever rising costs of care, as well as on individuals who simply are not covered. Because of these dysfunctions, there has been growing pressure within the system for change; because the present system benefi ts many elite groups, however, there is also great resistance to change. Consequently, various proposals have been made to restructure the entire medical care system so that incentives are created for preven- tive medicine, people have broader access to health care, and costs are redistributed and contained. Functional analyses were performed not only on the existing system but also on many of the proposed reforms. What functions and dysfunctions would a widely available government insurance option have for the rest of the system and on specifi c organizations and groups? Many groups and organizations Principles of Macrosociology 21 are essential conditions for the development of the bureaucratic state, for only such a state could assure the free movement of capital and labour as well as provide the institutional supports for large- scale markets, property and labour law, and the predictability and calculability of investment that is needed for large-scale capitalism. Randall Collins (1980, 940), a pre-eminent Weber scholar, has this assessment of Weber’s overall theoretical orientation: “For Weber, the state and the legal system are by no means a superstructure of ideas determining the material organization of society. Rather, his theory of the development of the state is to a considerable extent an analogy to the Marxian theory of economy. The key factor is the form of appropriation of the material conditions of domination.” While Weber cannot be considered an exclusive materialist, he can be thought of as a fellow traveller. But it should be pointed out that no social scientist—even Marx—actually asserts that mate- rial conditions are all that matter. “The idealist likes to begin the causal analysis with the unquestioned motivating power of ideas,” says social evolutionist Robert Carneiro (2003, 216). “The material- ist prefers to begin the analysis one step further back, going behind the ideas to see how they arose in the fi rst place and came to enter people’s heads.” According to the materialist, material and structural conditions are translated into ideas, ideologies, and values, cultural elements that then motivate people to action, sometimes action that is even counter to their own material interests. Weber provides an often needed reminder that sociocultural sys- tems are never simple. In the closing lines of The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism ([1904] 1930, 183), he states: “But it is, of course, not my aim to substitute for a one-sided materialistic an equally one-sided spiritualistic causal interpretation of culture and of history. Each is equally possible, but each, if it does not serve as the preparation, but as the conclusion of an investigation, accomplish[es] equally little in the interest of historical truth.” What Weber is saying here is that the interaction of many sociocultural factors plays a role in social evolution. The subject matter of sociology deals with very complex systems—material conditions, social structures, and 22 Sociocultural Systems cultural superstructures are in constant interaction. With regard to the origin of capitalism, these factors would include the geographical conditions of Western Europe; the dissolution of feudalism; the rise of the nation-state; the division of political authority among church, nobility, king, and merchants; the plunder of the Americas; and Weber’s Protestant ethic and the rise of rationalism. But while the full exploration of sociocultural system interactions makes for good ethnography and history, it makes for poor social theory. The goal of social theory is not to detail every conceivable relationship but to provide a concise world view that summarizes, orders, and weighs what appear to be the most important relation- ships among sociocultural phenomenon. Part of the futility of the debate between materialists and idealists is that material and ideal conditions are in constant interaction with one another and it is therefore extremely diffi cult to demonstrate causal priority. In addi- tion, our concepts and measures of social processes simply are not precise enough to establish clear priority—a necessary precondi- tion for establishing causality. Terms like industrialism, bureaucracy, capitalism, Industrial Revolution, democracy, rationalization, and the Protestant ethic are all treated as things or singular events when in fact the terms are abstractions of social processes with only a tenuous reference to reality. The Industrial Revolution, for example, is an arbitrary construct used by social scientists, journalists, and lay people alike. There is no one event that marks its beginning or ending except as defi ned by social consensus: it is not a thing but an abstraction that we use to break the continuous world of reality into pieces that we can manip- ulate.  Like other forms of technology, these abstractions have a totalitarian character: they tend to simplify by arbitrarily leaving out complexity. For example, many argue that the acceleration of indus- trial activity started well before the middle of the eighteenth cen- tury (the beginning date cited by most); some mark the beginning of the revolution as the mid–sixteenth century or even earlier (Nolan and Lenski 2011, 188–94). However, most continue to associate its beginning with inventions such as the steam engine, mechanization Principles of Macrosociology 23 of textile manufacturing, and innovation and expansion of the iron industry—the technological changes, in other words, that brought on the fundamental transformation to modern industrial forms. While we mark the initial phase as beginning in the mid–eighteenth century, it is important to keep in mind that we are dealing with a gradually intensifying process that occurred over generations (and is still ongoing), not with a discrete event. Technological innovations (such seemingly simple devices and practices as horse collars and three-fi eld rotation) were producing food surpluses (and stimulating population growth) as early as the ninth century. These new methods aff ected structures and cultural values—and were aff ected by them— long before what we generally call the Industrial Revolution. By rei- fying the Industrial Revolution—that is, by considering the term as a thing in social reality rather than understanding it as a construct that arbitrarily labels a part of a continuous process of technological development—we are seriously misleading ourselves. The arbitrary nature of our abstractions of social phenomena prevent the type of testable precision called for by this theoretical disagreement. Since materialist theory cannot be conclusively demonstrated empirically, the strongest argument of the materialist can only be one of logic. Why should material conditions be given priority over social structure and cultural elements? The reason rests on the fact that we are physical beings who depend on obtaining food, clothing, and shelter from the environment in order to survive. It is through regu- lating population level (by means of Malthusian preventive and posi- tive checks, which lower the birth rate and increase the death rate, respectively) and through production technologies and practices that all societies manipulate their environments in order to regulate the amount and type of energy needed for survival. The aim of social science, Marvin Harris (1979, 57) tells us, is to discover the “maxi- mum amount of order.” The environment places severe constraints on human societies. It is population and production that are most directly aff ected by these constraints, and it is also through popula- tion and production that these constraints are stretched or modi- fi ed. To say that ideas and ideologies are central in explaining human 26 Sociocultural Systems prominent causal role to material components of that system; this is highly compatible with formal social evolutionary theory. Marx posited that societies go through evolutionary stages. Beginning as communal systems, they move through ancient, feudal, capitalist, and, fi nally, socialist phases. While Marx’s evolutionary view is widely known, it is rarely acknowledged or emphasized; the revolution at the end seems to get all of the attention. However, look- ing at the entire sweep of prehistoric and historic societies, it is clear that Marx saw this revolution as occurring only after a long social evolutionary process: “No social order ever disappears before all the productive forces for which there is room in it have been developed; and new higher relations of production never appear before the mate- rial conditions of their existence have matured in the womb of the old society” ([1859] 1911, 12). The evolutionary character of Durkheim’s theory is expressed in the lengthy quotation in the previous section, particularly in his assertion that civilization develops from the pressure exerted by increasing numbers of people competing for sustenance (an asser- tion that owes much to Malthus, Spencer, and Darwin). It has often been claimed that Weber saw society as evolving toward an ever more bureaucratized, rationalized state. Weber was evolutionary in terms of his systemic view, his functional perspective, and his emphasis upon cumulative change. That he integrated such an evolutionary perspective into his social theory is evidenced by the fact that he uses the term “evolution” forty-three times in his classic Economy and Society, and thirty-three times in General Economic History (twice in chapter headings).7 To say that macrosociology is evolutionary does not mean all macro theorists claim that society is going through set stages or that all societies are evolving toward a common system. These are hoary old theories that are too often used as straw men to entirely dismiss social evolutionary theory.8 The common ground of macrosociology is only that societies are historical systems undergo- ing cumulative change and that this change often begins in a sys- tem’s material infrastructure (population and production processes) in response to changes in its natural and social environments. Principles of Macrosociology 27 Modern macrosociology tends to be evolutionary in the same manner, most explicitly in the work of those theorists most infl u- enced by Malthus or Spencer (Marvin Harris, Gerhard Lenski, Robert Carneiro, and Stephen Sanderson) and Marx (John Bellamy Foster, Immanuel Wallerstein, and Harry Braverman) but also with acolytes of Weber (C. Wright Mills, George Ritzer, and Norbert Elias) and Durkheim (Stjepan Meštrović and Robert Nisbet). The general model of today’s macro theorists begins with the material base of societies and the immediate natural environment, which consists of the physical, chemical, and biological elements necessary to sustain human life. Arable land, climate, geography, water, and plant and animal life are all part of this environmental foundation. Like all living organisms, humans must obtain energy from their environment in order to sustain life. As social animals, humans exploit their environment in co-operation with others. In that pro- cess, the sociocultural system as a whole moves toward a balance between reproduction and the consumption of energy from a fi nite environment. The collection of mechanisms by which social systems strike this balance is termed (by those writing explicitly in the materialist tradi- tion) the “infrastructure”; it consists of all behaviours that regulate population as well as those behaviours involved in the production of food and other necessary goods. In other words, the infrastructure is the principle interface between a sociocultural system and its envi- ronment. It can be divided into two parts: (1) the mode of produc- tion, consisting of material and social technologies (including the division of labour) aimed at satisfying requirements for subsistence, and (2) the mode of reproduction, consisting of demographics and the behaviours, technologies, and conditions that aff ect them, such as mating patterns, fertility, mortality, contraception, and abortion.9 Not only are there structural factors within population and production that, when unchecked, cause them to grow exponen- tially, but there is also a positive feedback loop between popula- tion and production. In systemic terms, a positive feedback loop is a self-reinforcing chain of cause and eff ect. “It operates so that 28 Sociocultural Systems a change to any element anywhere in the loop will have conse- quences that cascade along the chain of causal links, fi nally changing the original element even more in the same direction. An increase will cause further increase; a decrease will eventually cause fur- ther decrease” (Meadows, Randers, and Meadows 2004, chap. 2). Jared Diamond (1997, 111) uses the term autocatalytic to describe such a relationship, several examples of which will be discussed throughout this book. In the loop between population and produc- tion, for example, growth in population density often stimulates an increase in the production of food, and this increase in the production of food often causes a further increase in population density (Malthus 1798, 9; Boserup 1965). Throughout history (and prehistory), both productive and reproductive forces have expanded, and this expansion has been especially rapid in the past two hundred years. STRUCTURES Macrosociologists do not maintain that material conditions are all that matter in explaining sociocultural phenomena; rather, they argue that these material conditions are primary factors aff ecting social structure and culture. Social structures—human groups and organizations—are considered second-order variables in under- standing sociocultural systems. The growth of population and the intensifi cation of production have caused changes in the social struc- tures of human societies. Max Weber asserts that this intensifying infrastructure has caused the growth of both government and cap- italist bureaucracy. The larger the state, Weber ([1946] 1958, 211) notes, the more it is dependent upon bureaucracy: “It is obvious that technically the great modern state is absolutely dependent upon a bureaucratic basis. The larger the state, and the more it is or the more it becomes a great power state, the more unconditionally is this the case.” The growing complexity of the production process also provides signifi cant stimulus to bureaucratic growth: Principles of Macrosociology 31 IDEAL CULTURE Durkheim ([1893] 1997) argues that as a society becomes more com- plex, individuals play more specialized roles and, as a result, become increasingly dissimilar in their social experiences, material interests, values, and beliefs. While individuals within such a sociocultural system have less in common than do members of a simpler society, they are more dependent upon each other for their very survival. The growth of individualism is an inevitable result of the increasing division of labour that is part of the evolution of the mode of pro- duction and the bureaucratization of the social structure. Durkheim believed that this individualism can develop only at the expense of the common values, beliefs, and normative rules of society, the senti- ments and beliefs that are held by all. With the loosening of these common rules and values, individuals also lose their sense of com- munity or identity with the group. The social bond is thereby weak- ened, and social values and beliefs no longer provide members of the society with coherent, consistent, or insistent moral guidance. The weakening of the social bond is one of the key concerns of Durkheim’s sociology. Modern macro theorists who have followed Durkheim’s lead in this area include Robert Nisbet and Stjepan Meštrović, but one can fi nd similar concerns expressed among Weberians (Mills and Ritzer), Marxists (Braverman and Foster), and those strongly infl uenced by Malthus and Spencer (Harris, Lenski, and Boserup). All argue that loss of community, alienation, or anomie are rooted in such factors as the increasing division of labour, specialization, urbanization, bureaucracy (corporate, government, and other), cen- tralization, secularization, and a decline in primary groups. Krishan Kumar, in his book Prophecy and Progress (1978), suggests that all of these causative factors are interrelated. He divides the char- acteristics of industrialism that were identifi ed by the founders of the discipline into six broad categories: (1) urbanization; (2) demographic change; (3) the decline of community; (4) specialization and the divi- sion of labour; (5) centralization, equalization, and democratization; and (6) secularization, bureaucratization, and rationalization. 32 Sociocultural Systems The view suggested here, of the changes entailed by industriali- zation, involves so sweeping a transformation of the structure, culture, values and beliefs of a society that it is most unlikely that other changes cannot be accommodated under their general rubric. Indeed one of the analytical problems is that each single theme or characteristic usually represented for a par- ticular thinker a more or less total characterization of the new society. So it is, for instance, with Tönnies and the decline of the Gemeinschaft; Durkheim and the increased division of labour; Weber and rationalization. It is clear from their accounts of these phenomena that almost any one of them could be made to encompass all of the six features that I have chosen to list separately. (109–10) Kumar goes on to state that although many of these themes (particu- larly Weber’s rationalization) predate the Industrial Revolution, they were developed and strengthened by the industrialization process and have come to characterize industrial society. Along with his work on bureaucracy, Weber is perhaps best known for his concept of “rationalization.” As already stated, many have taken Weber’s rationalization as an indication that he was an idealist, an advocate for the theory that ideas are the prime movers in human societies. However, his writings reveal a much more complex posi- tion. Rationalization, according to Weber, is the process of substi- tuting behaviour based on goal-oriented, observation-based, rational thought for actions based on emotions, traditions, or values. When confronted with a goal, rational thought guides us to choose the most effi cient means to attain that goal. Weber believed that of the four basic motivators of human behaviour—rationality, emotions, tradi- tions, and values—rationality was becoming more and more domi- nant in the West. He attributed this evolution not to simple chance or to mystical or spiritual reasoning but rather to changes in material conditions such as the intensifi cation of production processes and the consequent growth of bureaucracy, both of which promote goal- oriented rationality. Principles of Macrosociology 33 True to his systemic thinking, however, Weber does not leave it there. Because of continuing intensifi cation of production, popula- tion growth, and an ever more detailed division of labour, formal bureaucratic organization expands and the process of rationalization continues to grow in the West (and through the West, the world). People increasingly see their world in its terms. When confronted with problems of production or reproduction, we tend to rely on goal-oriented rationality rather than on tradition, emotions, or values. When confronted with problems of human organization, we attempt to solve these problems through bureaucracy—the applica- tion of rational thought to human organization—without much con- sideration for traditions, values, or emotions. Rationalization—the application of observation, logic, and experience to achieve specifi c goals—is now our characteristic mode of adapting to the natural and social worlds. The rationalization process is thus one of the many feedback loops discussed throughout this book. Intensifi cation of production through mechanization and the division of labour causes bureaucratization, both of which lead to the increasing dominance of rationality (or goal-oriented thinking through the application of logic and observation). This growth of rationality, in turn, promotes fur- ther bureaucratization and intensifi cation, which in turn promotes further rationalization. This characteristic mode of adaptation has signifi cant impacts on both the sociocultural system and the indi- viduals who make up that system. INEQUALITY A major principle of macrosociology is that there are inequalities of life chances both within and between societies. The degree of this inequality is highly dependent upon material conditions. Labour will always be necessary to draw subsistence from nature. The self-inter- est of individuals—the desire for riches or the fear of poverty—pro- vides much motivation for human thought and action. Every macro theorist, bar none, deals extensively with inequality—its origins,