Weber's Sociology. The Ideal-Type Explaining Social Phenomena Essay

webers Sociology. The Ideal-Type Explaining Social Phenomena - Essay ExampleTo do so however, it is not sufficient to observe action of one person or collect data from a group of individuals. It requires selection of method to address the peculiar question the action raises (Schtz, Walsh & Lehnert, 1967 5). Weber does not find definition alone sufficient there should be understanding from an individual action. A few causal explanations could be made e. g. I am certain the windowpane broke because it was struck by a rock - I saw it myself but I can not predict on the basis or rules or laws as to what blows will break which windows. At the most a generalisation like Windows are fragile, and fragile things tend to break when struck laboured enough, other conditions being right. (Ringer, 1997-85)... Webers method of understanding meaning of an action is by construction of ideal types. These are not statistical averages since these depend on fantastic questions being asked at that tim e and they are created as per the methodological demands of these questions (Schtz et al. 1967 5). The article focuses on Webers concept of ideal-type and rationality as a tool for understanding genial phenomena through interpretive sociological research.An ideal type is a mental construct or picture which the investigator uses to address the macrocosm. The ideal type is diametric from ideals and it is ideal in coherent way. For an investigator the ideal type is an instrument that he or she uses to give a meaning to the diverse reality. Its usefulness lies in its success in revealing concrete cultural phenomena in their interdependence, their causal conditions and their significance (Weber 1949 as in Andersen & Kaspersen, 2000, p 79). The investigator designs an ideal type by the one sided accentuation of one or more point of view and by synthesis of a great many diffuse, discrete more or less present or occasionally absent concrete individual phenomena, which are arranged to th ose one- sidedly emphasised viewpoints into a unified analytical construct (Weber 1949 as in Andersen & Kaspersen, 2000, p79). Webers definition may be understood by a simple example. Suppose A and B are playing bearded darnel. Their behaviour is orient to an action model, M. The model is not restricted to A and B only, it is an ideal type chess player. Schutz et al (1967) explain that beyond their individuality as chess player, the other concrete individual living experiences of A and B are neither identical nor are being compared here. Andersen & Kaspersen (2000) clarifies that the ideal type are homo construct and do not have any counterpart in reality. The companionable laws are examples of ideal type. Knowledge of law is not the knowledge of reality these are path leading to understand the reality. The origin of ideal type is attributed to the finding that social sciences lack the causal laws and experimental regularities of natural sciences. Weber cautioned social scientis ts against using historical constructs as such for explaining reality in contemporary times he rather advises them designing their own construct using these as basis. The historical constructs show beliefs and attitudes prevalent at that time. Human behaviour is not predictable or constant phenomenon (Ringer, 1997, p110). There are always individual elements associated with it. Weber had maintained that we keep ourselves to certain aspects of reality while exclude other since the chosen aspects are relevant to our values. We thus reduce the complexity of data by constructing abstract concepts containing only