iron cage
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 29 มี.ค. 2018
- Iron Cage: The "iron cage" is an idea presented by Max Weber as a description of the affect of modernization processes on individuals and social relationships. The idea is that rationalization and specialization forces in the work place (factory, office, bureaucracy) alienate people from their labor and make them feel they are trapped in an "iron cage" of rationalized production in which the goal of efficiency replaces other, more human characteristics such as creative expression, pride in one's labor, or personal connections with other workers.
Additionally, Weber argued that these same forces would eventually expand from the production process and spill over into other, more personal aspects of daily life. In the end, Weber felt that modernization would turn humans into "automatons." He famously wrote that these social changes would make modern humans, "Hedonists without heart, specialists without spirit."
Since Weber wrote in German, there are different translations of his idea. I don't speak German (sorry) but the original Parsons translations provides the term "iron cage." More recent translations use the term "shell as hard as steel" to emphasize the organic origins of these processes. According to this view, these modernization forces are like a kind of Frankenstein's monster, we create them, but then they grow up and recreate us.
![แฉ [2/4] 11 ก.ค. 67 ‘ขวัญ อุษามณี’ เผยความจริง 16 ปีที่แล้วเกิดอะไรขึ้น? | GMM25](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/K4pXnUiObbk/mqdefault.jpg)
you just summered up 30 pages of reading that made no sense to me until I watch your video! THANK YOU
Brilliant, I am worn out reading and trying to understand, U have absolute clarity,
Many thanks
Yes. A very nice explanation. I found another good illustration on this topic on a podcast. You guys can give it a try
open.spotify.com/episode/6MK3lnNgb5CxMRQptRr1S4?si=0Ebc47b9RMKBEjm0SG-UxA
Thank you for breaking this down. I have been drowning in the literature and Weber's book and nothing is really making much sense. This helps a lot.
you have no idea how much this video help... been researching for days but now its all here
wow, you just made my day with this video. It has summarized what I have been trying to read without understand for the past 2 hours.
Amazing video, i unintentionally found myself taking notes.
Thank you for a easily understandable and unique videos. I really like your style
Thank you for making it so easy to understand.
Thanks for explaining, and referring to other videoes as well.
this was so so helpful thank you for explaining so simply
This is the best explanation it helped me so much thank you!
kudos on the job well done man. your ability to explain concepts is remarkable.
This video was very helpful. Thanks a million.
Really helped me out here XD Thanks for visualizing the topic
Great explanation! Thank you!
You sir, are my hero.
Thank you very much.
thanks, youre so good at explaining these concepts. i know virtually nothing about sociology and am able to grasp your videos
This helped me alot! Thank you.
thanks a lot!
Great video
exactly what i needed
goe bezig aude
Good Morning ! Sir do you maintain any blog or website to follow your lessons ?
I think this is a very good application of the IC to modern examples. However, I think it is important to remember that this is your interpretation of the meaning of the IC. The use of the IC by Weber is fragmented, in the Protestant Ethic he refers to it as an institutional cage, then a cage relating to individual mentality, then in other works he refers to it in political terms. I think the biggest misconception of the IC is people saying 'It means this and doesn't relate to this'. It depends upon the phenomena you are looking at how you view the cage, IMO.
Yes, but no. I can agree with the idea that Weber wrote about the Iron Cage in different ways, and that he probably wasn't setting out to create a vocabulary word for 101 classes when he was thinking about society. However, the basic, textbook definition of iron cage applies reasonably well to the three realms you mention (institutions, individual mentality, and politics). Additionally, (and more importantly) I'm uncomfortable with the idea that a specific, scientific term can mean whatever we want it to mean. Maybe you're not trying to say that, but we live in a relativistic culture where everyone wants their opinion to be treated as equally valid to everyone else's. In some spheres of life, that's fine. But within science, it's essential that terms have specific meanings with limited applications. You can imagine how effective something like physics or chemistry would be if everyone created their own, arbitrary definitions for everything. While this is more difficult in the social sciences than in others, the concept is nonetheless essential. I make these videos primarily for 101 students. Vocabulary definitions are not matters of opinion or interpretation. True, scholars do debate meanings, but they learn the commonly accepted definition before they're ready to play that game.
I'm fine if you think my definition is wrong or the application is misleading or incorrect. If so, explain why and provide an alternative. I feel strongly, however, that it's incorrect to treat definitions as matters of opinion or interpretation. A definition is an agreement to use a particular word in a specific way. That agreement (part of what we call "culture") is what makes communication possible. We agree on the meaning of a concept, and this allows us to talk about it and be sure we're understanding each other. If everyone has their own definition, effective communication is impossible (witness politics when two opposing parties use the same terms in different ways). My videos are an attempt to illustrate the way sociologists have currently agreed to use these concepts. Again, I may be wrong, but that doesn't change the fact that a specific definition with a limited scope is essential.
@@sociologicaldictionary5268
I’m sorry but you are absolutely wrong here!
“we live in a relativistic culture where everyone wants their opinion to be treated as equally valid to everyone else's.” Emmm, yes, but one of our fundamental jobs as sociologists and social scientist in general is to generate professional conventions (which always take off from our own social/collective imagery) and develop critical apparatuses to discern where we can apply and construct equalities and where relativisms are valid; points absolutely linked to the intentions and investigation purposes of the observer, not some sort of “reality” which we can directly access.
Think of Howard Becker: The only way we (as sociologists) have to see the empirical world is through a plan or image of it (which will define what information is valid, the authorized means to obtain it, the relationships to look for among the data and the ways to postulate propositions) and we can identify that image in the form of a set of premises constituted to the key objects that make up that image. The basic operation for the study of society is the production and refinement of the image of what we study, and that includes flexible concepts with multiple possible definitions and changing implications depending both in the context used, and the aprioristic tradition in which we are positioning.
“I'm uncomfortable with the idea that a specific, scientific term can mean whatever we want it to mean”. Yes, we can’t be completely arbitrary, but we absolutely can (and in many cases should) understand variable concepts that will change depending where a person is speaking from (“genre”, do you think it will mean the same thing for a psychologist and a biologist? This kind of thing happens all the time with mathematicians and engineers, and even in the same branches of physics as an example, sometimes a concept has two entirely different meanings depending on the purpose of the work done; maybe it seems here like I’m leaving my argument halfway, but in the last paragraph the real core of what I am trying to say here is expressed).
“You can imagine how effective something like physics or chemistry would be if everyone created their own, arbitrary definitions for everything”. Sounds like a euphemism, I could say in response “You could imagine how effective something like physics or chemistry would be if no one created their own, arbitrary definitions for anything”; both cases are equally chaotic, you are unnecessarily polarizing things.
If we had static concepts that would lead to static and sterile theories, and this is a last-century solved debate: think of Karl Popper and Immanuel Lakatos with falsificationism; if there was no flexible but rigid “basic, textbook definitions”, no theory would be able to adapt to the development in knowledge both in other areas ant within itself; marxist branches, for example, would have never been able to criticize and even extend their theoretical areas of interest (think feminism with Silvia Federici, particularly in Caliban and the Witch; her radical critique to Marxism for not taking into consideration reproductive labor is not a destructive or non-marxist positioning, yet it shake a lot of things an forces us to at least tweak definitions, basic concepts and even implications of topics as well accepted as the original accumulation).
You are RIGHT that definitions are not matters of opinion, they are matters of methodological construction, and vocabulary definitions may not be up for interpretation; BUT the Iron Cage is NOT a vocabulary definition, is a broad conceptualization that can lead to very interesting-valid developments if sociological creativity and scientific rigor are properly used.
“That agreement (part of what we call "culture") is what makes communication possible. We agree on the meaning of a concept, and this allows us to talk about it and be sure we're understanding each other. If everyone has their own definition, effective communication is impossible (witness politics when two opposing parties use the same terms in different ways).” As wrong and reductionist as this is, I will just say, lets analyze precisely the case you present. Opposing parties using the same terminology with distinct conceptual charges [I’m not sure that is the proper term, in Spanish we could say “cargas conceptuales”] communications is nor impeded or nullified; we are just unable to get to consensual agreements, but the act of communications is undeniably achieved; if what we meant to say is or is not properly translated, that’s absolutely irrelevant. Perhaps you mean, “precise mutual verbal understanding is not achieved”, but that’s a loooong stretch from saying that the agreement on the meaning of a concept is what makes communication possible; what about symbolic or non-verbal communications? What about screams of pain? Has “evolution” made the agreement for us to internalize as a dire or at least stressful situation? This brings anooother dimension of the problem, do you see get where I’m trying to get and the example I’m trying to give? “Communication” is absolutely not the same for a romantic couple than for a linguistics professor. Heck, even in sociology there are very distant specific meanings of communication! That doesn’t mean I completely fail to understand what you mean with “That agreement (part of what we call "culture") is what makes communication possible”, or viceversa [eeeeven with a language barrier, with all my mistakes, in a non-verbal interaction like this, you understand (yes, disagree, yes, dislike, but UNDERSTAND at least some of what I am trying to communicate)]. For example, It is ABSOLUTELY not the same communication for Niklas Luhmman’s as for Jurgen Haberman’s, and many institutions will ask in an investigation for six, nine, thirteen elements needed for a thesis, for example, but many of them will be basically asking for the same things.
“that doesn't change the fact that a specific definition with a limited scope is essential.”. I absolutely agree with you, at least I would If I wasn’t reading the original comment you responded to. Limited scope is an extremely abstract thing, and the true validity and extents of that scope would be what a sociologist can properly (with rigorous methodologically and scientifical standards, at least I’m thinking in terms of Howard Becker and Pierre Bourdieu) construct as an investigation.
@@promocionempresarial8812 I'm curious about your motivation for responding to my comment.
@@promocionempresarial8812
"one of our fundamental jobs as sociologists and social scientist in general is to generate professional conventions"
Yes, that's what I'm trying to say.
"and develop critical apparatuses to discern where we can apply and construct equalities and where relativisms are valid"
sure, but you have to have the "professional convention" before you can have this expanded discussion about applications. You have to have a convention before you can have a discussion about how one might alter, adapt, or improve the convention. And that's my goal in these videos. This video is targeted at students first learning the basic conventions.
"you are unnecessarily polarizing things"
hmm, I don't think so. If two physicists are going to talk about "force" as a concept, they both have to be thinking about it in the same way. Or at the very least, they have to explicitly state what they each mean by force, so that even if they're talking about different things, they will both know it. The development of new and/or improved knowledge does indeed come from such differences and discussion, but a definition (and therefore a dictionary) are fundamentally about the explicit-ness, and thus the goal of "professional conventions," and this channel. I don't think I disagree with what you're saying (assuming I'm understanding it correctly), I just think that you're talking about a different "level" (for lack of a better word) of thinking than this video is aimed at.
I'm fine with the idea that we need to constantly re-consider our concepts and their validity, as well as the subjectivity of even our "hardest" scientific constructions, but I'm a bit of an old fashioned positivist. I think there really is a "reality" out there and thinking about whether or not our concepts fit it (and how well they do) is still a valid pastime. In all honesty, I think most of our sociological theories are really just "labels" rather than predictive explanations. That's a tangent though.
Maybe I misunderstood Peter Gittens' original meaning. After re-reading it again I can see how my response may not have been as near the mark as I thought. I wonder what I was thinking about/working on when I saw that comment? I agree that a concept can be applied in a variety of ways (I try to teach my students this in class all the time) and that was Peter's real point, which I missed. I don't remember the context in which I saw his initial comment, but I expect maybe I was spending a lot of time thinking about the politics of meanings or something, and so my response was a bit off the mark. I stand by the principle though.
I'm so confused what I just found, just found a whole new world
Thank you!! I don't know why in readings every other word is just some pointlesly long and doesn't make any sense
Its not about Alienation, its about still having 'the calling' without the religious justification any longer and that those that do not want a career are obliged never the less.
Why aren't there any more video from you? Please upload more videos from the concepts of grade 7 and 8.
great. now i gotta rewrite this paper.... ugh. Thanks. I guess...
Iron c-Age
People be acting like we still live in the 19th century
Ur bad sorry 🤣
DoublePump Days I was looking for fortnite vids not this 😂