User:Seminolebp/sya4010draft

Formal Rationality Definition
Formal rationality is a type of rationality in which people make practical choices that reflect the norms and regulations of the bureaucratic structures which shapes the society that they are a part of(Ritzer, 2003.) It is apparent solely in western culture due to the unique and regimented industrialized communities that have evolved in recent history(Ritzer, 2003.)

Origin of Concept & Structure
"Formal rationality generally relates to spheres of life and a structure of domination that acquired specific and delineated boundaries only with industrialization: most significantly, the economic, legal, and scientific spheres, and the bureaucratic form of domination(Kalberg, 1980:1158)." The fact that this type of rationality is brought out by industrialization is why it is so specific to western culture and not the entire world as a whole (whereas Weber's other types of rationality discussed below can basically apply to any culture worldwide.)

Formal rationality is one of the four types of rationality developed by notable German sociologist Max Weber. The other three types of rationality are practical (simple daily problem solving), theoretical(conceptual long term fix), and substantive(actions based on higher set of principles.) The difference between formal and substantive is often quite confusing and Weber's philosophy has been challenged since it can be argued that a higher set up principles defines both of them(Eisen, 1978, p.5-9.)  These concepts were introduced through Weber's studies of human action which he explains is the product of a cognitive procedure. As opposed to human behavior which Weber defines as a natural thoughtless reaction.

Formal rationality has similarities with some of these other types because it is a means-ends approach. The alternative is a value-rational action which is when one takes into account a larger set of ideals. The traditional means-ends approach method which is when a person makes their decisions on their own self interest is in slight variation with the idea of formal rationality. The difference being in this form they base them on these abstract rules noted though out their society which they give a higher power to(not themselves as an individual.)

The action mentioned at the end of the previous paragraph distinctly connects with the concept of Reification (Marxism)- treating these rules constructed by society and regulations as if they were actual individuals people felt it was necessary to please and adhere to. This is what intrigued Weber because the idea that this only occurred specifically in Western Culture and has never been noted anywhere else was extremely sociologically interesting.

Contemporary Setting (Sociologically)
The concept of rationalizing is an easy one to grasp for any human being; everyday people take part in rationalizing things to themselves in order to achieve what is necessary. However dissecting this action into various subcategories is where Weber truly found differences in each person and cultures as well. Specifically with formal rationality; the thought that people would put these fictitious structures ahead of themselves initially seemed baffling.

Certain critics have issues with the precise distinction between substantive and formal rationality. They argue that they are entirely too similar to be distinctly categorically separated. While substantive is driven by a higher set of values and principles one critic may argue that formal rationality is just that- because the bureaucratic machine is in fact a superpower. Sociologists following Weber's path explain that formal rationality specifically implies in the controlling power forcing down rules and procedures. Substantive is simply any higher values that are looking at the broad picture of life as opposed to the daily solutions.

Real life applications of formal rationality constantly appear obvious during any day in the majority of Western Culture, especially in the United States. They are constantly being pressed upon each human being, most blatantly by governmental operations and departments, large corporations, and even the fellow common man (Kalberg, 1980.) Certain of these examples people do not even notice, such as how fast a person is allowed to drive their automobile or filling out tax forms. But it is not merely just the guidelines which people must follow to be law abiding citizens of a country. It goes further to the actions people take in order to follow, or appear to follow these. Formal rationality is not the rules imposed by the bureaucratic machine; it is the response and actions that the people make in reply.

The 4 Dimensions of Formal Rationality (Economically)
Max Weber held his concept of formal rationality in high regard in comparison to other mechanisms that have been developed over the years. His noted four dimensions of necessary value to this concept included efficiency, predictability, calculability, and control (Ritzer, 1996.) Weber felt that these characteristics of formal rationality are what perpetuated and defined what he called the bureaucracy (Ritzer, 1996.)  Efficiency is key because it concentrates on attaining a maximum output with minimal cost; a known component of capitalism. Predictability is evident within large bureaucracies because their vast amount of rules and regulations leave little room for surprising behavior of any sort. These are the same rules and regulations that lead each person into their own formal rationalities around western culture. Calculability emphasizes the exact science that corporations have simplified the tasks of each job down to; this ties in heavily with predictability. The final dimension, control, can be explained in today's modern world by the ongoing replacement of human jobs with nonhuman technology (Ritzer, 1996.)

Refrences
Eisen, Arnold. 1978. The Meanings and Confusions of Weberian 'rationality.'  British Journal of Sociology Vol. 29 No. 1.

Kalberg, Stephen. 1980. Max Weber's Types of Rationality: Cornerstones for the Analysis of Rationalization Processes in History. The University of Chicago Press.

Kincaid, Harold. 2000. Formal Rationality and It's Pernicious Effects on the Social Sciences. Philosophy of the Social Sciences Vol. 30 No. 1.

Ritzer, George. 1996. The McDonaldization of Society. Thousand Oaks, Calif:Pine Forge Press. Pp. 17-20.

Ritzer, George. 2003. Contemporary Sociological Theory and Its Classical Roots; The Basics. McGraw Hill.

Further Reading & Additional Resources
Koch, Andrew M. 1993. Rationality, Romanticism and the Individual: Max Weber's "Modernism" and the Confrontation with "Modernity." Canadian Journal of Political Science.

Lanza-Kaduce, Lonn. 1982. Formality, Neutrality, and Goal-Rationality: The Legacy of Weber in Analyzing Legal Thought. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology. Northwestern University. http://www.jstor.org/view/00914169/ap040039/04a00030/0

Starkman, Ruth. 2003. "Max Weber." The Literary Encyclopedia. http://www.litencyc.com/php/speople.php?rec=true&UID=5028

Udy, Stanley. 1962. Administrative Rationality, Social Setting, and Organizational Development. The American Journal of Sociology. The University of Chicago Press. http://www.jstor.org/view/00029602/dm992546/99p1253x/0

http://www.faculty.rsu.edu/~felwell/TheoryWeb/Weber.htm

http://www.marxists.org/