Iron Cage

Black Swan

A philosophy advanced by Max Weber in his Economy & Society (1922) was that as society became increasing rationalised, the freedom to act became increasingly restricted as if confined within the limits of an iron cage.

Society was seen as moving from traditional (e.g., tribe or clan; nobility led), to charismatic (i.e., visionary, revolutionary change), to rational-legal (e.g., rule by law, policies, regulations, standards, and plans; from implicit norms to explicit rules; more numbers crunching, accounting, goals, objectives, and predictions). This transition has been referred to as the "march of rationalisation."

Example: At the advanced rational-legal level of development, business and corporation employee benefit plans (e.g., pensions, stock options, paid vacation, etc.) that were used to attract and retain quality employees were seen by Weber as a "shell of bondage," and a part of this rationalisation process. There was a vesting time for many of these benefit plans, and if you left early, you would lose; thereby tying many persons to a business or corporation that they might consider leaving but for this loss.

Life was becoming increasing bureaucratised, while the freedom to act increasingly restricted. If there was merit to Weber's perspective, when does this rationalisation process end, or will it continue until our volition to act has been completely compromised, as if confined to an iron cage?

Joe1919

On the other hand.....I heard someone on the news today talking about the growth of neo-liberalism and this made me think about a book I read from a political theorist Francis Fukuyama many years ago, who sees freedom (and to some extent pride and honor) as the ultimate individual goal that is best realized in liberal democracies which he sees as the final political destination of most states (The End of History).

I suppose you could also argue against society becoming increasing rationalised from a post modern perspective. e.g. The 'truth', values etc. is something that is constructed by big corporations, media, advertising etc. Modern woman/man to some extent is not a a slave to reason but a slave to money making whims/fashions of big businesses and is continually being brainwashed due to the overexposure of media/adverts/information. Man can no longer think for himself and his judgement of value is based on what others think. (Jean Baudrillard talks about 'sign value' and how reality 'dies out'.

Some of the above has been studied by economics and can be observed empirically. e.g 'herding' and of course things like property bubbles, where the value of property is not the 'real' value in terms of the worth of the bricks and mortar, but the 'sign' value, which can be manipulated to some extent.

Anyhow, the above are some quick thoughts, but I have never studied Weber in a serious way.

Manach

Speaking from what I've seen of the construction of the laws in the legal system, there has been a growth in the number of statutory bills and the bureaucracy needed to implment them. On one hand, a positive is that a greater degree of rights is thus then afforded to the general populace - hence greater freedom. On the other, there is the monetary cost to execute and implement these laws as well as the complexity than entails.
Instead of being able to be versed on how the overall system works, only parts of it "through a glass darkly" : hence a loss in democratic accountability.

Black Swan

Joe1919 wrote: »

On the other hand.....I heard someone on the news today talking about the growth of neo-liberalism and this made me think about a book I read from a political theorist Francis Fukuyama many years ago, who sees freedom (and to some extent pride and honor) as the ultimate individual goal that is best realized in liberal democracies which he sees as the final political destination of most states (The End of History).

Or does Weber's march of rationalisation lead to Aldous Huxley's Brave New World (1932): A dark satire whereupon persons are conditioned to love their cage? Only Savage escapes (a symbolic name for a character in this fiction of the future).

Manach wrote: »

Speaking from what I've seen of the construction of the laws in the legal system, there has been a growth in the number of statutory bills and the bureaucracy needed to implment them...

Instead of being able to be versed on how the overall system works, only parts of it "through a glass darkly" : hence a loss in democratic accountability.

Saw a picture awhile back where professors in the accounting department at a US college stacked their federal and state tax codes and related documention in one pile that reached an 11 foot ceiling. Unless you were a tax accountant or tax lawyer, what US citizen has the time to be knowledgeable of the tax codes that regulate their incomes and capital gains in this advanced Weberian rational-legal bureaucratic system? And the federal and state tax codes were only one of many regulatory systems that affect their lives, suggesting to me that ignorance was not bliss, and that this march of rationalisation continues to erode the freedom to act.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Torakx

For me, this rationalisation has gone way too far already. But then I am always considering my freedoms and slavery.
It hasn't given freedom, as much as enslaved the world.
There is a balance needed. Before, it seems the tribal communities where very "right brain dominant" in their ways.
Now a majority, in the west anyway, are doing things the "left brain" way.
Closing gaps, pushing forward without deep thought and constantly defining every detail. In doing so, it seems many times losing the original context.

Considering the use of Maritime laws to source revenue from citizens, through common law courts, it seems the bureaucracy has just enabled certain people to take advantage of those who are not versed in these things or who do not have the man power to fight the states henchmen, even if they are well versed in the law.

It might help to take a look at tribal cultures and see if they have their own iron cage and to what extent.

I think inherently, rules take away freedom.
They might afford certain others freedom in some cases though.
For example it is against the law to murder someone. But you could get away with it if you played the system well enough.
And those who do not enjoy being murdered might appreciate those laws.

However with justice from the people, this is less likely to happen, but then people also make mistakes and hang the wrong person.
So wheres the balance?
Smaller communities I think.
When larger and larger groups of people get together, the herd mentality comes about and all sorts of issues follow. The father archetype steps up and leads them astray.
It eventually leads this culture/group/organism to fall in on itself or so it appears to me.

Is bureaucracy then a result of more people getting together and seeking order out of a percieved chaos?
Order for orders sake makes no sense. I see it as a certain few with an ambition to create more bureaucratic agencies and think tanks, in order to enslave whole countries and continents.
Using politics, culture and economics as weapons.

The example of Maritime law applied over common law, as By Laws, might be a good one.
Basically enslavement through the use and corruption of language at the root there.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/person
From the world english dictionary section
A search for the word Person

1. an individual human being 2. the body of a human being, sometimes including his or her clothing: guns hidden on his person 3. a grammatical category into which pronouns and forms of verbs are subdivided depending on whether they refer to the speaker, the person addressed, or some other individual, thing, etc 4. a human being or a corporation recognized in law as having certain rights and obligations 5. philosophy a being characterized by consciousness, rationality, and a moral sense, and traditionally thought of as consisting of both a body and a mind or soul 6. archaic a character or role; guise

No4. A human being or a corporation recognized in law as having certain rights and obligations.
What people don't know on average, is that when they step into the dock, they are in the eyes of the law representing a corporation, when a crime is not involved.
A parking fine for example.
Criminal cases can use common law.

Or speeding while driving. Not traveling mind... thats not a business activity, but driving is.
Thats maritime law. Not the law of the land.
And this is what I see as a result of these bureacrats building a monopoly system, to later be expanded through "democracy" to the middle east and asia, in order to create a hive mind or one world government if you like.

To control these large populations, they took a leaf from the romans books regarding entertainment.
So we are heading for the Roman Empire 2.0 maybe.
Taking over land, destroying the culture through entertainment and laws, then leaving a corrupt legal system and government in place to finish up the job and maintain order.

We have the technology now to prevent famines, inform everyone on the planet. But the rules, laws and lobbying power of these bureacrats have prevented a lot of positive growth and assisted those who are already rich to continue to gain more, while also preventing many others from a decent chance to do the same.
I think Bureacracy is just a means to an end. When people start learning the game, make it more complicated so a majority can't keep up. It also raises value for the higher players hosting and playing the game.

Joe1919

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

There is a valid (postmodern) argument that knowledge and ideology is a power that can be used to control and restrict freedom; and is usually under the control of some system (e.g. political, commercial or religious). Greater communication/ mechanism/ education/ globalization can to some extent be misused. Postmodern writers such as Foucault and Althusser talk about (for example) schools and education as being part of the great ideological and repressive state apparatus. To some extent, education is about shaping and controlling how we think. But there are 'intelligence traps'.
http://think-quick.com.au/the-intelligence-trap

Of course, some of this was also the case in the past but I would think less so and in a more fragmented and different way. By the way, I still think that we are all prone to believe in all manners of irrational nonsense.

Torakx

That intelligence trap was interesting. I have seen it often on the conspiracy theories forums.
A place where some people go in order just to maintain the staus quo and be correct. The topic doesnt matter, as long as they are correct. The inteligence trap there is an unshakable belief in this society and order of things. Without such a belief all hope would seem to be lost for them.

I think the mention of intelligence traps is very applicable to this topic too.
Considering all the red tape caused by all this bureacracy, it is easy to see, that for example, solicitors and people working in law might be so buried in legislation that they completely lose track of the bigger questions and work from a blinkered view.
I can argue maritime law versus common law, but that won't matter. They will be buried in years of education on why the system works and will probably instantly reject me for trying to pull the foundations of their training down around them. Understandable I suppose.
Happens in psychology forums and many other places in life too.
I was the worst as a religious person many years ago. Because I could see answers to all the questions, I believed more so I was right.

I do think the roman empire might be a good model to look at when predicting what will happen to our own western cultures over the next 20-50 years.

Regarding this Iron cage and if we will break out of it or just continue to spiral deeper.
I see us spiralling deeper, at least if more and more of the worlds population becomes educated by the system.
The plan is going very well so far in circumventing the responses to stopping this Iron Cage setting up more and more boundaries. People are born into it and it only worsens gradually.
At the same time other freedoms are permitted as time goes by in order to allow the belief that we are getting more freedom.

But if you have to ask for your rights, then you clearly did not have any in the first place.
At least if I lived with a tribe in the jungle I could smoke a spliff or do some ayuasca without being harrassed by person or group, presuming to own my body.
People don't even ask if things should be a right. They have been educated to accept the authority of government and media.
Now if you grow up within the travelling community, you might find more free people. Oppressed for sure and harrassed, forced into a hard life, but more free a people in their thinking.
A lot of them not as well educated to live in the system/machine.

So I guess we can have some forms of freedom from this cage, but the punishment doesn't fit the crime.
But hey that's "progress" for ya.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Joe1919

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I remember my political philosophy text book had a chapter called something like 'What justifies the state' in which various philosophical theories were discussed. e.g. appeals to our social human nature (we experience ourselves as free and autonomous but in reality we are totally dependent on others); or some type of social contract theory, in which we give up some (or perhaps a lot of) freedom for the protection and benefits that we receive from the state; or some type of utilitarianism theory, which tries to keep most of the people happy most of the time.
I suppose there will always be some type of tension or dialect, with some people advocating none or very little government, to some crying out for more regulation and control. In practice, I am inclined to think that the government tries to muddle along and take some type of middle path.
The reason I bring this up for discussion is because I think the arguments about the 'iron cage' has many parallels and are really about how much government we should have.

But I am inclined to think that the truth of the pudding is in the eating. We can for example look at industries such as agriculture, which has become heavily regulated (e.g common agriculture policy) and see whether the benefits have outweighed the cost. (e.g. Is food of good quality, available, affordable?...Who were the winners (and losers)?....) Even though I am skeptical about our ability to rationally predict the outcomes of taking certain ideological positions, I think people do have eyes and ears and can see when things go badly wrong.

Incidentally, Ireland is a heavily governed state, with 48% of spending by the government and the government having some control and regulation over the rest. But on the other hand, I would not like to live in some of the countries that spend much less. ( e.g. many of the African countries)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_spending

Black Swan

Torakx wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Tribal was an example of traditional per Weber. Traditional contained more implicit norms to govern behaviour than the increasingly precise and explicit laws, rules, standards, and regulations found in modern day "Iron Cage" bureaucratic cultures. To the extent that traditional behavioral guidelines were more implicit (spoken, not written) than explicit (written), may suggest a culture with less Weberian rationalisation and more individual freedom to act.

This represented the philosophy of Claude Lévi-Strauss in his Tristes Tropiques (1955). In chapter 2, he advanced a theory of writing based upon his ethnographic field studies of the South American Nambikwara tribe. The introduction of writing was seen by Lévi-Strauss as something that laid the foundation for a power elite to emerge, and subsequently resulted in less freedom to act by individual tribal members, especially those that could not read or write. Writing by the few leaders became a form of "enslavement" over the illiterate mass, and for the primitive tribal members already filled with superstitions, somewhat awe inspiring.

Certainly today most of us read and write in Éire, but if you pile on massive amounts of laws, rules, standards, and regulations to where it's not feasible read and understand them all, it appears that such massive bureaucratic writings can serve to "iron cage" us in modern day (Weberian rational-legal) society.

Caution should be exercised when looking back on this work by Lévi-Strauss, given that he committed an ecological fallacy by reasoning from one unit of analysis (tribe case study) to the larger unit of all humanity. Furthermore, I find the continuous learning and improvement of language (spoken and written) as liberating, not enslaving, especially for someone of humble origins like myself.

Permabear wrote: »

Over the past few centuries, power has simply shifted from churches and monarchs to bureaucratized states.

Thus suggests Weber in Economy & Society: A shift from traditional to rational-legal authority structures.

Once this march of rationalisation had been set in motion, has it become reified over time to where it now has a life of its own? Can it be transformed into something beneficial; and if failing that, can it be somewhat reversed, or otherwise stopped (short of doing something apocalyptic)? How?

Torakx

Black Swan wrote: »

I find the continuous learning and improvement of language (spoken and written) as liberating, not enslaving, especially for someone of humble origins like myself.

I do find it very liberating too. Even more so when I consider I learned most of my english through reading fantasy books to begin with. And now the philosophy really challenges me again to learn more.
Even your explaining of implicit and explicit, was helpful for me.Although I already forget which is which haha.

But now that I am so into turning things on their heads, I also have to say that maybe it is liberating because others have advanced an area of communication and just catching up with the rest, gives us more freedom of expression. Because if we were ahead of everyone else in that regard, those extra pieces would be of no use to us.
In that way, I still see language as a trap.
A sacrifice we made, in order to push forward faster, in a linear/forward sort of way. Progress??
Where painting and music might be considered a broadening. And so If we got rid of allabilities for language and went bak to painting for expression, we have complete freedom of expression and no limiting factors.
Although, this rationalization may be inherent, and so this art would eventually form rules as the herd mentality is applied to forms and practises.
Which leaves my "arguement" I don't know where

Black Swan wrote: »

Once this march of rationalisation had been set in motion, has it become reified over time to where it now has a life of its own? Can it be transformed into something beneficial; and if failing that, can it be somewhat reversed, or otherwise stopped (short of doing something apocalyptic)? How?

I think Nietzsche said something like " If it's shakey on it's foundations, push it down."
Sounds like anarchy. But that might be what is needed to halt "progress".
I am guessing any system that gets much too complicated eventually has issues working. Maybe an engine or processor chip would heat up too fast, creating too much energy/heat from over working.
The solution right now for CPU's would be cooling them.
In the Roman society, that might have been the fighting arenas. Entertainment for the masses.
This overall mechanic, to me, seems to be stemming from power aquisition in many areas of life.
I have started listening to a youtube reading of Nietzsches Will To Power
This is reminding me of that, but not the true meaning of that topic for Nietzsche I know. Partly applicable maybe.
In that this rationalisation is one of the Wills To Power. Or not?
I haven't finished the book yet.

Black Swan

Joe1919 wrote: »

But there are 'intelligence traps'.
http://think-quick.com.au/the-intelligence-trap

One of the purposes of the scientific method is to reduce or otherwise eliminate the risk of falling into such intelligence traps. By convention we do not test what we believe to be true (stated as the research hypothesis). Rather, we test the null hypothesis of no significance; and if our data and analysis shows that there is significance, then the null is rejected, and support is suggested for the research hypothesis. If we only tested the research hypothesis, in our desire to support what we believe to be true, we might overlook contrary evidence (e.g., and risk committing the error illustrated by digging the same hole deeper metaphor). And lastly, if significance is found, it only "suggests" that the research hypothesis may have merit, not proof. Science is to exercise caution by only suggesting, as the discovery of new theories, data, and methods in the future may change in part or completely our perspectives of the natural world.

Taking a more moderate view to the implications of the OP, moving from Weberian traditional to rational-legal during this march of rationalisation may also bring some benefits as opposed to iron cage limitations. For example, the scientific method appears to be more useful to understanding our natural world than thousands of years of superstitious belief systems.