Burocracia & Racionalização e Desencantamento
Burocracia & Racionalização e Desencantamento
Burocracia & Racionalização e Desencantamento
Leitura complementar
Bureaucracy
Weber's interest in the nature of power and authority, as well as his pervasive preoccupation with
modern trends of rationalization, led him to concern himself with the operation of modern large-scale
enterprises in the political, administrative, and economic realm. Bureaucratic coordination of activities,
he argued, is the distinctive mark of the modern era. Bureaucracies are organized according to rational
principles. Offices are ranked in a hierarchical order and their operations are characterized by
impersonal rules. Incumbents are governed by methodical allocation of areas of jurisdiction and
delimited spheres of duty. Appointments are made according to specialized qualifications rather than
ascriptive criteria. This bureaucratic coordination of the actions of large numbers of people has become
the dominant structural feature of modern forms of organization. Only through this organizational
device has large- scale planning, both for the modern state and the modern economy, become possible.
Only through it could heads of state mobilize and centralize resources of political power, which in feudal
times, for example, had been dispersed in a variety of centers. Only with its aid could economic
resources be mobilized, which lay fallow in pre-modern times. Bureaucratic organization is to Weber the
privileged instrumentality that has shaped the modern polity, the modern economy, the modern
technology. Bureaucratic types of organization are technically superior to all other forms of
administration, much as machine production is superior to handicraft methods.
Yet Weber also noted the dysfunctions of bureaucracy. Its major advantage, the calculability of
results, also makes it unwieldy and even stultifying in dealing with individual cases. Thus modern
rationalized and bureaucratized systems of law have become incapable of dealing with individual
particularities, to which earlier types of justice were well suited. The "modern judge", Weber stated in
writing on the legal system of Continental Europe, " is a vending machine into which the pleadings are
inserted together with the fee and which then disgorges the judgment together with the reasons
mechanically derived from the Code."
Weber argued that the bureaucratization of the modern world has led to its depersonalization:
[The calculability of decision-making] and with it its appropriateness for capitalism . . [is] the
more fully realized the more bureaucracy "depersonalizes" itself, i.e., the more completely it
succeeds in achieving the exclusion of love, hatred, and every purely personal, especially irrational
and incalculable, feeling from the execution of official tasks. In the place of the old-type ruler who
is moved by sympathy, favor, grace, and gratitude, modern culture requires for its sustaining
external apparatus the emotionally detached, and hence rigorously "professional" expert.
Further bureaucratization and rationalization seemed to Weber an almost inescapable fate:
There is yet another respect in which Weber differed from, or rather enlarged upon, Marx. In
accord with his focus on the sphere of economic production, Marx had documented in great detail how
the capitalist industrial organization led to the expropriation of the worker from the means of
production; how the modern industrial worker, in contrast to the artisan of the handicraft era, did not
own his own tools and was hence forced to sell his labor to those who controlled him. Agreeing with
most of this analysis, Weber countered with the observation that such expropriation from the means of
work was an inescapable result of any system of rationalized and centrally coordinated production,
rather than being a consequence of capitalism as such. Such expropriation would characterize a socialist
system of production just as much as it would the capitalist form. Moreover, Weber argued, Marx's
nearly exclusive concern with the productive sphere led him to overlook the possibility that the
expropriation of the workers from the means of production was only a special case of a more general
phenomenon in modern society where scientists are expropriated from the means of research,
administrators from the means of administration, and warriors from the means of violence. He further
contended that in all relevant spheres of modern society men could no longer engage in socially
significant action unless they joined a large-scale organization in which they were allocated specific tasks
and to which they were admitted only upon condition they sacrificed their personal desires and
predilections to the impersonal goals and procedures that governed the whole.
_____________________________________________________________________________