(1979). Social Networks and Psychology. Connections, 2 - INSNA

- 72 -ARE DISTRIBUTIONS REALLY STRUCTURES? : A CRITIQUE OF THE METHODOLOGY OF MAX WEBER*Harriet Friedmann (Sociology, U .of Toronto)ABSTRACT . Two conceptions of social structure may be distinguished : structural approachesanalyze the patterns of relations among units, while distributional approaches seek todepict social structure through determining the distributionsofcharacteristicsoftheunits . Through explicitly developing the analytical method of constructing organizedsocial forms from probabilistically conceived social actions, Weber systematically definedthe aggregative and distributional logic which underlies much contemporary sociology . Anexamination of his studies of bureaucracy and of class and status, reveals that Weberabandoned his methodological strictures in favour of a more structural approach when hissubstantive and theoretical analysis required it . An understanding of the limitations ofdistributional conceptions of social structure points to theoretical and methodologicalapproaches through which sociologists can build on both the distributional and thestructural aspects of Weber's work .At least two fundamentally different conceptions of social structure can be identified, which Ishall call structural ) and distributional . The first defines structure as patterns of relations amongunits, whether individuals, organizations, or groups . The second, often implicitly, seeks to depictsocial structure through determining distributionsof characteristicsoftheunits, whether they beshared norms or values, or socio-economic attributes . Both approaches have been taken, for example, inmobility studies, and a simplified contrast may clarify the distinction . A structural approach determinesboth the existing paths of mobility within the organized set of positions (not occupational categories) insociety and the career lines determined by the patterns of recruitment into those positions . A distributionalstrategy approaches social structure less directly, through its reflection in the distribution ofrewards (such as income or status), and seeks to determine the distribution of characteristics (such aseducation, motivation, or father's occupation) of mobile and non-mobile individuals . I shall return tothis example in my conclusions .This paper is a critical examination of one of the classical sources of distributional, or aggregative,strategies of social analysis, the methodology of Max Weber . Weber's ideal-typical social actionsare rooted in probabilities of the occurrence of given meaningful behaviours ; he bases his constructionof organizational forms sometimes on the simple aggregation of these actions, and other times, on thedistributions of types of action among the population of social actors . The importance of Weber's work isuniversally recognized among sociologists, and a wide range of researchers, from ethnographers2 to surveyanalysts, draw upon his social action methodology . For Weber social action is based on the subjectivemeanings of individuals, and social structures are derived from the probabilities of occurrence of idealtypicalsocial actions . The subjective aspect of his approach is immensely important and has often beenthe focus of analysis and criticism . Yet the probabilistic underpinnings of Weberian analysis have rarelybeen examined . Nor have either the implications of restricting the unit of analysis to probabilisticallyconceived ideal-typical social actions, or the derivation of structure to the aggregations of these units .In what follows, I shall not seek to characterize the whole of Weber's methodology, still less the richnessof his historical studies . Instead, I shall attempt to explicate that part of his approach based onprobabilistic analytical constructions .What will emerge is that Weber both systematically defined the aggregative and distributional logicwhich underlies much contemporary sociology, and at crucial points in his substantive work, abandoned itin favour of a more formal and structural approach . As Zeitlin (1968) convincingly argues, Weber shouldnot be read in opposition to thinkers seeking to analyze objectively observable social dynamics . Butthis substantive and theoretical compatibility exists precisely because Weber was willing to sacrificehis methodological strictures when the analysis required it . His commitment was to understanding basicsocial dynamics, such as the development of rationality as the basis of social action in modern Westernsociety and not in other times or places . Therefore, when his method failed him, he implicitly adoptedanother . Some of his most significant work for later generations of scholars, the study of bureaucracyand of class and status, will provide the material for an examination of his own adaptations to thelimitations of the distributional methodology implied by the social action approach . This critical examination,in turn, will lead to suggestions about the appropriate uses of each strategy of analysis .Probability and Aggregation :From the ideal-typical actor to organized social lifeWeber's emphasis on the subjective meaning of social action uniquely defines the character of his*This essay was originally printed as Research Paper No . 63 of the Centre for Urban and CommunityStudies, The University of Toronto, July, 1974 . It reflects my understandings at that time .