outcome from the first course of events then to look at it from the rational sense, and then go through it adding the possible irrational elements. “That there is, however, a danger of rationalistic interpretations where they are out of place naturally cannot be denied. All experience unfortunately confirms the existence of this danger.” (Webber M, 1947)So Webber believes that their is no real assertive “answer” for the actions, or meanings of such actions for any individual. Although he says it is entirely possible to be able to grasp these concepts intellectually, and even eventually to understand them. But the ultimate floor is not being able to put yourself imaginatively in someone else’s place because of our individuality. This gives us difficulty when trying to understand what motivates others to perform actions, which we would interpret as being an incorrect course of action. So Webber’s interpretation of what would have caused the events of fascism may have been a lot more like the rational explanations we would associate with psychology. If we ask ourselves what should learn, from fascism and the holocaust perhaps it would not be out of context to say that we can use the studies of these events o compare how sociologists look at human behaviour. It can both add support, and contradict what we have assumed about types human behaviour. BibliographyBauman, Z. (1989) Modernity and the holocaust. London, Polity with Blackwell.Bendix, R. (1959) Max Webber An Intellectual portrait. University PaperbackGiddons, A. (1989) Sociology Polity Press, Cambridge.Shaw, M. (1984) WAR, STATE, AND SOCIETY. The Macmillan Press LTD. London.Webber, M. (1947) The Theory of Social and Economic Organization. Simon and Schuster. Translation and recopyright in 1975 by Talcott Parsons. ...
