Talk:The Bureaucratic Machine

Weber describes the bureaucratic machine as a means to carry community action to societal action. When I think of driving social change, I see bureaucracy as limiting as there are many rules to abide by, official documents to complete, and a strict hierarchy of roles and responsibilities.

I remember applying to a government position this past summer and having to fill out so much paper work and receive clearance for an interview. Having worked at a private enterprise instead this past summer, I found the bureaucracy to still exist of course but it was much less limiting. Thus, when I contemplate enacting social change, it seems that it would be more efficient with less red tape to go the route of a social enterprise in the private sphere than enact change from a government position.

What are your thoughts on how to enact change? Are there limitations to the private sphere that I have not illuminated?

I think that you should well consider the risks of private enterprise for social change before considering it as the best route. The "public" meant as the state apparatus is obviously problematic as well, and as you mention, it could be practically slower because overly bureaucratized.

However, I think its is a better route both in principle and, to an extent, in practice. In principle, I think that the government as such, especially when of a democratic form and accountable to its people, should be taking responsibility and demonstrate that the reasons for the legitimacy of its existence are beyond the exercise of control and power of the elected ones over the "demos", but they actually include a resourceful promotion of change for the good of the community. Although I personally generally doubt the legitimacy of government's existence and power to enforce rules, I would argue that this is the only facet of its ruling functions that are fully justifiable and useful to a population, in so far that, I believe, they are what, outweigh government's oppressive authority in the public opinion's eyes, allowing the governments to stay in control. So perhaps, considering this specific consequence, it would be more desirable not to have government's invested in promoting change, but my argument would rather regard not having governments at all, and I doubt that this was the point of your question.

On the level of practice then, I still believe that, having accepted the existence of governments, they are still preferreable to private enterprises in enacting social actions, as they are indeed politically accountable through laws and elections, at least in the case of fully functioning democracies. This is never the case for private enterprises, which are only accountable to their own interests for maximing their profits, and which would likely enact change only for "marketeable" aims and through profitable means, while also hiding the need for structural, political and long-lasting change. You may argue that governments are as well tied up in corporations' and their lobbies' interests and would not necessarily act for the common good, but that would refer us to my first argument of discussing the existence and functions of governments in today's world.

Private and public enterprises complement each other in their advantages and disadvantages and our society needs both of them, in my perspective. Private organizations stimulate the economy on a micro level and prioritize in maximizing its profits, which is not to say that it will seldom serve the common good. For example, a lot of positive social events are funded by private companies and I feel we should not ignore their contribution due to their money-drive nature. Another benefit of private enterprise is that they really contribute to social innovation and creation. The example of Starbucks staff refer to customers by their first name can be considered as a social innovation, which enhance interpersonal warmth and may help decrease life pressure in a small way. This is something that public organizations may have a lot of difficulty doing because they aim at bigger picture of communal and societal change. Hence, they often would not bother making small changes that they do not see the longer effect. In a word, we can combine the public and private enterprises to make a better change in our social action after we consider how and to what extent we are going to utilize both of them.

Hi Emma and Miaoting,

Thanks a lot for responding. Emma, I think you are right about how the slow and steady movement of the government is actually full of checks to ensure that they are serving the public well. We both agree that private enterprise is better for social change and innovation but is fettered by the hunt for profit and the M'.

Miaoting, I like your Starbucks example and want to challenge the social innovation of using the customer's first name. I feel that this mechanism being a friendly gesture is illusory and more so yet another mechanism to capture profit and that ever sought after M'. I feel that by writing first and more importantly writing the name INCORRECTLY is to make the customer post or share their cup on social media like snapchat or instagram. . Thus, using the customer as a free advertisement or billboard for Starbucks. It is similar to clothing stores that do not ask if you need a bag but pack one for you without hesitation. You will walk down Robson Street or 4th Avenue as a human, moving advertisement for that store. All this in an effort for profit.

Hi Hugh. I am sorry but I would rather not be misunderstood. I see all of your points, but it is a misreading of my argument to say that we both agree that private enterprise is better for social change and innovation. As I wrote in my previous comments, I see the flaws you point in the government, but I still believe it's better than private enterprise, at least assuming that it's a functioning democracy and in a realm where we have already agreed to the fact it exists. In simpler words, that is to say that if we could get rid of any form of government and be sufficiently evolved to coexist peacefully in anarchism, I would be happiest. However, as we daily prove not to be even close to any communitarian utopia, I think that an accountable and elected government is a much better option than a profit-driven private company to promote social change. Not only the latter will base its actions on individual interests related to market profitability, but developing a societal expectation for social actions to come from private institutions further delegitimizes the state and lets the market aquire even more power, while hiding the political nature of structural problems which need political and communal, accountable intervention for change.

I think as the other comments discussed, it is good to have both public and private entities working to help people. My primary concern with putting that responsibility in the hands of a private company, however, is that whoever leads that bureaucracy can actively choose when to start helping people and also when to stop. That is to say, if the CEO of a private company retires, and a new person takes over, that new CEO can choose to specialize in making profits, which very often leads to exploiting other peoples' work in some form. When we compare this with the public or state organization, each position in the hierarchy is unchanging, and the person who fills that seat at the top of the hierarchy must abide by the structure's principles and cannot (ideally) act with self-interest. I think that a bureaucracy which is entirely dedicated to serving citizens is a good thing because it will ideally eradicate those who show self-interest, whereas private organizations might encourage people with aggressive, ladder-climbing qualities. Of course, the caveat with this is that not all state bureaucracies in every country is actually practicing those principles of "equality" and "meritocracy," such as with the Russian government, which is known for bribery as a means of attaining many state positions.

We talked in class today about how bureaucratization has become the dominant form of social organization in modern society. Its goal is to get things done efficiently, but this simultaneously strips the individual of their humanity and individuality.

An example that comes to mind is UBC's strict policies around course add/drop or withdrawal dates. It also attaches policies around the refund of tuition. It does allow students to have exceptions for personal, familial, or health circumstances; however, these reasons are subject to the scrutiny of a committee. If a student was to drop a course due to an extraneous reason that could not have been foreseen at the time of the deadline, they could still not get a tuition refund because their reasons were not significantly justified. Instead, the committee could just refer the student to an external help source like a counsellor. This is an instance where the student has to navigate the bureaucratic system in hopes of gaining an exception.

This makes students feel dehumanized and that their needs and end goals are controlled by a higher authority. Even the UBC slogan "tuum est" (it's up to you) can become a sort of misconception. We are often enchanted with the idea that we have the control and agency to make change happen. While this could be a possibility, we can't ignore the fact that we have to navigate the bureaucracy.

I agree that UBC is a prime example of bureaucracy, and that navigating its systems can be a dehumanizing experience for many students. However, I believe that when discussing the impersonal nature of UBC's bureaucratic systems one can fall into the trap of over-rationalizing UBC policies and treating UBC as a secular organization. While rationalization is an intrinsic component of bureaucratization, certain traditional values are transferred into university policies, such as the fact that all Christian observances are automatically made holidays while students of other faiths have to specifically have their holidays cleared by an adviser or professor. In such ways, although the bureaucratic systems at UBC may seem impersonal, certain groups of people are favored according to traditional value systems.

Bureaucratic processes are seen everywhere and it is important to consider how bureaucracy and capitalism go hand in hand. As a result of capitalist societies, bureaucracies are important to promote efficiency and predictability. Although individuals become subordinate to the processes of certain organizations, the bureaucracy often times maintains productivity. As you both mentioned, UBC is a great example of a bureaucracy. Without the implementation of its structure, it would be difficult for students to navigate through the different activities necessary to succeed at the university. However, I do agree that this process can be dehumanizing. I feel as though our individual freedom is sometimes limited because we must abide by certain rules but on the other hand, with the number of students at UBC, I can see how the bureaucracy has been created as a form of organization.

I agree with Tiffany's holistic view of the Bureaucracy. In the field of Sociology, we use our critical thinking to examine the impacts of social phenomenon, such as the abovementioned point. Nevertheless, every system has its limits, including Capitalism and Bureaucracy. Each system needs to promote efficiency and productivity to maintain itself. The fact that we can all use this online platform to generate discussion and attend our courses is a benefit of Bureaucracy. Sociology strives to enhance everyone's well-being, but this is on the grounds that the financial needs and productivity are met. Therefore, I appreciate the resources which I can use in terms of learning at UBC despite its Bureaucratic nature.

@BarbaraPeng I have to agree with TiffanyHanna's response, where although the UBC bureaucratic system may be de-humanizing in many aspects, the reasons for its policies and rules are put in place with the goal of promoting productivity. I have seen this system work in other places as well, such as the UBC Recreation centre that I work at. We have strict policies that we must enforce with the public, and these rules are seen to many as constricting and unfair (or "de-humanizing"), however these rules are in place due to efficiency reasons, as well as how Weber puts it, the desire to make it equal for everyone using bureaucracy as the enforcer. The fact that people do not like how we do not accept anyone missing their student cards (and forget their student number) into the gyms is our policy to ensure that everyone who is in fact a student and who has paid their student/rec fees does not get cheated by others who have not--for we have many people come in pretending they are students when they are actually alumni or students of other schools to get out of paying our drop-in rates. And if we are on the matter of discussing the problems of UBC's dehumanizing bureaucratic system, is there anyone with ideas on how to fix what they feel is not right?

This is definitely a circumstance which does make students feel dehumanized, especially when they have legitimate reasons for dropping a particular class but, past a certain deadline, that reason suddenly loses its validity.

This also makes me think of the over-rationalization in the process of taking time away from school when one is seriously sick, injured, or experienced the death of someone in their family. Someone might have to miss an exam or drop a class because their mother died, and yet advisors ask for proof of the death, despite how much it adds insult to injury. I think even people working in the UBC bureaucracy feel sympathetic, and yet, they must obey the established rules and principles that the bureaucratic structure demands.

Most people are understanding of personal tragedy, and they even empathize, but they are restricted from doing so and have to treat students in a very dehumanizing manner because they are a cog in this "bureaucratic machine," much like Marx's alienation of labour.

Weber argues that there are three types of power domination- rational grounds, traditional grounds and charismatic grounds. I feel those can be applied to family power relationships as well. We can still see family which are structured on traditional grounds in many cultures, where the father has absolute power because he is a man and due to traditional gender rules, he should be the power center of the family. I can think of some cases of family based on charismatic grounds in the media. In this case, the man's heroism attracts the woman and that is the reason that he can make the woman listen to him. Legal rules do not give standards of who should have more power in the family, so maybe the rational grounds does not apply to family power relationships directly. However, the legal rights elect people of more skills and talents to run the power. This idea of meritocracy applies to liberal family in modern setting, where the couple discuss and elect the more competent one to finish certain tasks, such as filing taxes or driving. Do you have other interesting examples of different types of authority, based on Weber's ideas?