Weber talks about how there are different types of relationships. One type is open and he describes this type of relationship as being open if it does not deny participation to anyone that would like to be a part of the group or relationship. On the other hand a relationship will be considered to be closed to the public if participation of certain people is excluded or limited. He also states that the way to determine if a relationship is open or closed can depend on factors that are traditional, effectual, or rational in terms of the values of the relationship.
It is likely for a relationship to be open if the members expect that by letting others join it will lead to some type of improvement of their situation. The same is true if they expect the improvement to occur if the relationship is closed to others, meaning they are interested in having a closed relationship.
Weber goes on to talk about an economic determinant that can frequently be seen in deciding whether to have a closed or open relationship. This factor is the competition for livelihood, most often clients. When the number of competitors increases for the resource people are interested in reducing the amount of competition. This is usually done when one groups takes some characteristic of another group, like race, language, or religion, as a way to exclude them from the competition. They then form what Weber called an “interest group” towards outsiders, which means that although they are in competition with each other they work together to limit the number of others that are able to compete with them. This can lead to the emergence of monopolies. The appearance of these types of monopolies, which are economic, is what leads to cooperative organizations which are closed monopolistic groups that work together to exclude things from outsiders.
These types of relationships, monopolistic, can then take on specific forms when they are formed by people that have shared qualities attained through shared upbringing, education, and experiences. This suggests that what Alan Rudy was talking about in class is true that people with social connections are set for life. That all the people that grow up together, go to the same private schools, and then go on to attend the same prestigious colleges have in an for the career that they want or to be allowed to join these closed relationships. But only a selective few are allowed to join these groups. The ones that are admitted to these groups have to meet these requirements: 1) have completed the proper training, 2) have proven their qualification, and 3) have gone through further waiting periods and met additional requirements. This type of pattern can be seen from the most juvenile groups to the most sophisticated.
With these types of groups, where closed relationships are involved, it is the priority of the individuals that are in the group to do what is in the best interest of the group as a whole not the individuals.
Thursday, September 3, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Our society is a an environment based around freedom. With this freedom we are able to change our status, but to an extent, you can only change it so much. Even though the ability and potential is there, the probability that you would be able to do this is very small. With examples given in the post above from Weber, it is without certainty that what are suppose to be open relationships are actually closed relationships. What i mean by this is that even though an individual is free to make the decisions he/she wants to be something other than where they started (ie being in lower class stature), and unless they have the resources to do so, they technically can not join these open relationships of middle/upper class individuals without money. So what are suppose to be Open Relationships to most people is actually not unless you carry the paper with the dollar signs.
ReplyDeleteInterest groups are something that historically has been a problem for our country, especially around the early 1900's when immigrants were coming in by the thousands daily. The competition for work was being degraded by different ethinic groups because of the hatred for one another and inability to work together to force companies to give higher wages. In our society today and time era, this is not as big of an issue within our country but is now internationally. Companies all over the U.S. are shutting their companies down and taking them across the seas to China and other countries similar since they will work for lesser wages than Americans.
Agreeing with what Steve posted, our society is so focused on the whole idea of being able to change from social classes based on anything. As talked about in class as well, the Horatio Alger Myth, the majority of society believes that one can over come any obstacle to rise above and beyond to work their way up in the social ladder. Although in most cases is this really true? With the open and closed relationships, can a person born into poverty really rise above to their true and full potential? As talked about in class with examples like Barack Obama achieving so many goals and becoming President of the United States, is this really true for anybody, or is it a one in a million?
ReplyDeleteIt is also very interesting to see the effects it will have on such things as the social connections. Meaning, those who were in wealth, that may have lost some of their money due to stocks or whatever, are they now thrown out of the social connections because they can’t afford to spend money, and do some of the finer things in life they could? Are they looked at differently because they can’t afford the ritzy outfits and have to downgrade? Maybe a bit off topic, but very interesting to see where they rank to others and the effects it will have on the open and closed relationships.
I agree with both of the comments that are written above. Growing up in a middle class black home, with my grandparents that were raised during the civil rights they always taught me that I had to work harder for what I wanted then the average person. Meaning, that because I was black I had to work harder then the whites to get the same thing that they have. Now really this is based upon how much money you make or what class you fit in, and because most blacks were poor they didn’t have the same education, or opportunities that a rich white person would have. The ratios of poor blacks to poor whites are a lot greater on the black end of the stick. This means a lot more black people have a hard time fitting into that upper class white world. This all started because blacks were not treated equally and could not engage in a Business relationship with a white person, and if they did so there would be a limit to how far this relationship can go. Whites didn’t want to let blacks fully in or teach them how things work because they didn’t want blacks to be equal to or above them so whites kept blacks at the bottom. That is an example of how a relationship between races should have been open to make things equal but was completely closed.
ReplyDeleteGoing back to what was said in one of the other comments; yes the society gives people these thoughts that they can be what they want to be if they work hard enough. Well my thoughts on that are, that I can work hard to fit in a certain world but that doesn’t mean that the world that I work so hard to get into will accept me. Me not coming from the same wonderful walk of life that they did, they might try to keep me down because they don’t want any of my "kind" in that world. Even referring to woman in the work force, men can go all way up to the top. For women we hit what is called a Glass ceiling, we can only go so far. The people at the top have this relationship or group that is supposed to be an open relationship but is not. They allow in whom they want and put out this stigma that women are not fit, but they do so discretely