General Background of the Emergence of the Concept of “Ideal Type”:
At the far end of the 19th century, philosophical discussions in Germany were focused on the question of the place of science in human studies. It was felt by the idealist philosophers that scientific method could not be used for studying cultural subjects. The main argument was “that social phenomena are unique and do not, therefore, allow generalisations.”
Weber did not accept this view. He was of the opinion that scientific categories could be used in the field of human studies or cultural objects. Weber’s belief that scientific method was relevant to social studies encouraged him to offer a set of operational definitions and to construct concepts such as “ideal types” which could be used.
“The idea behind the concept of ideal type is that social phenomena in virtue of their manifold and fluid nature can be analysed solely in terms of the extreme forms of their characteristics, which can never be observed in their purity.
Sociologists make use of “ideal types” as measuring rods or as means to find out similarities and differences in the actual phenomena. In fact, it is one of the, methods of comparative study. Weber used the concept as an abstract model, and when used as a standard of comparisons, it enables us to see aspects of the real world in a clearer and more systematic way.
Ex: Socialism and free market capitalism, for example, can be described as “ideal types: by identifying their essential characteristics, their essence – in a pure somewhat exaggerated form, that is, unlikely to actually exist anywhere other than in our minds. Socialist and capitalist societies differ in many ways, from their respective ideal types.
For example, socialist states usually have been authoritarian and never reflect workers’ interests. In the same way, capitalist markets are increasingly controlled by oligopolies rather than being freely competitive.
What is to be understood here is that, it is not the purpose of ideal types to describe or explain the world. Instead, they provide us with points of comparison from which to observe it. By comparing the ideal type of socialism with actual socialist societies, for example, we can highlight their characteristics by seeing how they match or depart from the ideal type. Sociologists use many ideal types in this way, including “primary and secondary groups”, “bureaucracy”, types of authority such as “charismatic, traditional and legal-rational” and so on.
Max Weber cautions that the “ideal-type” is to be constructed and used with great care. As he has stated,
(i) The ideal types are not hypotheses;
(ii) They do not state or imply an ethical ideal;
(iii) they do not state an “average” type;
(iv) they do not exhaust reality; i.e., they do not correspond exactly to any empirical instances.
Main Characteristics of “Ideal Types”:
Main characteristics of “ideal types” can be briefly examined in the following manner
1. Ideal types are mental constructs or subjective in nature: As Weber has stated more positively the ideal types are mental constructs which are ideal in the “logical sense”, that is, they state a logical extreme.
They depend on our capacity for comprehension and imagination. Example: We may have ideal type regarding “perfect health”, church, state of equilibrium, perfect religion, democracy, etc.
2. Since ideal types are mental constructs they do not exactly correspond to the reality: Ideal types are constructed in such a way that they are kept at a distance from the real world.
Though they are constructed out of many actual facts, they themselves do not exactly correspond to the actual facts in each and every respect. Because, they are mental constructs created to understand reality and they themselves do not have actual existence.
Differences are found between ideal constructs and actual situations. Thus, “not all the characteristics will always be present in the real world, but any particular situation may be understood by comparing it with the ideal type.
For example, individual bureaucratic organisations may not exactly match the elements in the ideal type of bureaucracy, but the type can illuminate these variations. Ideal types are therefore hypothetical constructions, formed from real phenomena, which have an explanatory value.
3. Ideal types as theoretical tools: Though “ideal types” are not actualities and remain as our mental constructs they function as theoretical tools to understand the reality. “Its function is the comparison with empirical reality in order to establish its divergences or similarities, to describe them with the most unambiguously intelligible concepts and to understand and explain them causally.”
4. Ideal types are not the instruments to denote statistical average: The ideal type is “not a description of those factors or laws which are thought to be found “on the average” in that kind of configuration…… “For example, the Protestant Ethic does not indicate the average behaviour of all the Protestants, (ii) Similarly, ‘honesty’ does not indicate the average behaviour of all the honest people that the society has witnessed.
5. Ideal types signify ”pure” or ”abstract” types and do not indicate anything that is normatively desirable: As Weber himself has stated the ideal types have “no connection at all with value- judgements, and it has nothing to do with any type of perfection there than a purely logical one.”
There are thus all sorts of ideal types “of brothels as well as religions” [Weber], Totalitarianism is no less an ideal type than democracy, for example, for both are abstract constructs with which we can compare and contrast actual political systems in order to see their various characteristics more clearly. It is a “methodological device”, that is all. “It is not ideal in the sense of ethically good or right.
6. Ideal types are not hypotheses:
Ideal types are not hypotheses and hence the question of proving or disproving them and establishing general laws does not arise here. Ronald Fletcher writes: “It is not a basis of comparative experiment for the purpose of setting up “general laws.” On the contrary, it is a limiting case for the explanation of a specific configuration.
Comparative tests are always such as to throw light upon the specific configuration and check the adequacy of the specific ideal type. Thus, Weber in his very wide studies in the sociology of religion examined the relationship between the religious ethics in various societies and elements of economic development there.
But this was not to establish general laws about the relationships between “religious ethics” and “economic development; it was essentially to check the sufficiency and validity of his ideal type of the relationship between the Protestant [Calvinist] Ethic and the emergence of industrial capitalism of the Western Europe”
7. It is essentially a “one-sided model”:
It is one-sided in the sense it deliberately emphasises those imputations thought to be worth postulating and testing. In this sense, it is purely selective, and of the nature of experiment.
8. Ideal types do not provide an exhaustive description of a social phenomenon:
The nature of ideal type is such that it does not provide an exhaustive description or an account of a social phenomenon or an entire social configuration. “Many ideal types can be constructed about any specific configuration, each selectively emphasising “one point of view” and submitting its particular imputations to test.” [Ronald Flethcer430],
9. Ideal types are not rigid and fixed things, but are subject to change:
Ideal types are abstract in nature and they reside in our imagination. They are changeable and subject to consideration from time to time. They are affected by social thinking and social environments and hence cannot be permanent. “Weber did suggest that major discrepancies between reality and an ideal type would lead to the type being redefined. Thus redefinitions of ideal types can also take place.
Though Weber’s concept of “ideal type” has been well appreciated by scholars it is not free from criticisms. Some of the criticisms levelled against the concept are briefed here,
1. Though the ideal type is a “mental construct” many a times it is confused to be the “actual reality” itself.
2. There is also the possibility of considering the “ideal type as a procrustean bed into which data are forced in.”
3. The “ideal type” is often made a theory and the ideas or things that it represents are often taken to be the ideas and things that are very much found in the real world,
4. It is commented that the concept of “ideal type” is very complex and only an expert sociologist can understand and make use of it efficiently.
5. Though “ideal types” are very significant in the study of social sciences, their usage is somewhat limited because they cannot be used in all types of social analysis.
6. There are critics who argue that “ideal type analysis should be dropped as utterly inappropriate to sociological analysis once this is seen as involving the meaningful understanding of specific cases and not the development of general concepts and general theories.
7. Weber himself had argued that “ideal types were not models to be tested. However, other sociologists treat them as testable models of the real world. Further confusion may arise since
Weber himself often implicitly used ideal types as testable models.
Finally, it can be said that if the above mentioned dangers and deficiencies are averted, the ideal type can become an extremely useful instrument to confront reality.