zweckrationalität: H. P. Grice used
the vernacular here, since he found it tricky to look for the Oxonian for ‘Zweck.’
As he was reading Weber, Grice realises that
one of
the main theoretical goals of Weber’s work is to understand how a social
process (such as a conversation, seen as a two-player game) become
“rationalized,” taking up certain themes of philosophy of history since Hegel
as part of social theory. Conversation, as part of culture, e.g., becomes ‘rationalised’
in the process of the “disenchantment of a world views” in the West, a process
that Weber thinks has “universal significance.” But because of his
goal-oriented theory of action and his non-cognitivism in ethics, Weber sees rationalization,
like Grice, and unlike, say, Habermas, exclusively in terms of the spread of
purposive, or MEANS–ends rationality (“Zweckrationalität”). Rational action
means choosing the most effective MEANS of achieving one’s goals and implies
judging the consequences of one’s actions and choices. In contrast, value rationality
(“Wertrationalität,” that Grice translates as ‘worth-rationality’) consists of
any action oriented to this or that ultimate END, where considerations of
consequences are irrelevant. Although such action is rational insofar as it
directs and organises human conduct, the choice of this or that end, or this or
that value itself cannot be, for Weber, unlike Grice, a matter for rational or
scientific judgment. Indeed, for Weber this means that politics is the sphere
for the struggle between at least two of this or that irreducibly competing
ultimate end, where “gods and demons fight it out” and charismatic leaders
invent new gods and values.
Wednesday, May 20, 2020
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment