Key Arguments

• Weber defines an open relationship as one where 'participation in the mutual social action oriented to the substantive meaning that constitutes such action is not proscribed by prevailing valid rules to anyone so inclined and able to participate.'
• Conversely, he defines closure as when 'its substantive meaning or its prevailing rules exclude such participation, or restrict or permit it only according to specific conditions.'
• He notes that 'Openness and closedness can be defined traditionally or affectively, by value or by purposive rationality', tying modes of closure to his four types of action.
• He emphasizes rational grounds for closure: 'Rational closure can in particular arise for the following reasons: admission to a social relationship lends participants the Chance that inward or external interests can be satisfied ... If the participants anticipate that wider dissemination of the relationship will improve ... their own Chancen, then they are interested in the openness of the relationship; if on the other hand they anticipate that their own Chancen are improved by monopolising it, then they will be interested in closure against outsiders.'
• He illustrates different bases of closure: (a) traditionally closed communities based on family membership; (b) affectively closed personal relationships (erotic or pious); (c) value‑rationally closed strict‑belief communities; (d) purposively rationally closed economic organisations of a monopolistic or plutocratic character.
• He observes that many relationships, such as guilds, democratic cities, monastic orders, sects, and markets, 'alternate between expansion and closure', sometimes broadening membership to gain power or turnover, and at other times restricting it to protect monopolies or ethical standards.
• He notes that even linguistic sociations vary in openness depending on content (e.g., casual talk vs intimate or business communication).

Source Quotes

(The market and the commercial economy42 based on it is incidentally the most important type of mutual influence of action by naked interests, as is characteristic of the modern economy). §10. A social relationship, whether communalisation or sociation, will be called open to outsiders to the degree that participation in the mutual social action oriented to the substantive meaning that constitutes such action is not proscribed by prevailing valid rules to anyone so inclined and able to participate. By contrast, a social relationship is closed to outsiders to the extent that its substantive meaning or its prevailing rules exclude such participation, or restrict or permit it only according to specific conditions.

A social relationship, whether communalisation or sociation, will be called open to outsiders to the degree that participation in the mutual social action oriented to the substantive meaning that constitutes such action is not proscribed by prevailing valid rules to anyone so inclined and able to participate. By contrast, a social relationship is closed to outsiders to the extent that its substantive meaning or its prevailing rules exclude such participation, or restrict or permit it only according to specific conditions. Openness and closedness can be defined traditionally or affectively, by value or by purposive rationality.

By contrast, a social relationship is closed to outsiders to the extent that its substantive meaning or its prevailing rules exclude such participation, or restrict or permit it only according to specific conditions. Openness and closedness can be defined traditionally or affectively, by value or by purposive rationality. Rational closure can in particular arise for the following reasons: admission to a social relationship lends participants the Chance that inward or external interests can be satisfied, whether this be on account of the purpose of the relationship itself or because of its successful prosecution, whether it arises from solidaristic action or from a balance of interests.

Rational closure can in particular arise for the following reasons: admission to a social relationship lends participants the Chance that inward or external interests can be satisfied, whether this be on account of the purpose of the relationship itself or because of its successful prosecution, whether it arises from solidaristic action or from a balance of interests. If the participants anticipate that wider dissemination of the relationship will improve the degree, nature, certainty, or value of their own Chancen, then they are interested in the openness of the relationship; if on the other hand they anticipate that their own Chancen are improved by monopolising it, then they will be interested in closure against outsiders. A closed social relationship can secure its monopolised Chancen to participants in a number of ways.

The apparently useless and “wearisome” definition of these circumstances is illustrative of the fact that what is “taken for granted” because tangible and familiar tends to be “thought” about least. 1. a) traditionally closed communities tend, for example, to be those whose membership is based on family relationships; b) personal relationships based on feelings tend to be affectively closed (relationships of an erotic or pious nature); c) communities that are closed with regard to value rationality tend to be communities of strict belief; d) economic organisations (Verbände) of a monopolistic or plutocratic character are typically closed and purposively rational. A few examples can be cited here: The extent to which a linguistic sociation is open or closed depends on content (light conversation as opposed to intimate or business communication).

The market relation tends in the main to be open. We can observe that many communalisations and sociations alternate between expansion and closure. This is true of gilds, for example, and also of the democratic cities of ancient and medieval times, whose members alternately expanded and contracted their number, sometimes seeking as great a number as possible as a means of securing their Chancen through power, while at other times they sought to restrict such growth in the interest of their monopoly.

A similar process can be observed in monastic orders and sects, shifting from expansion in the interests of religious propaganda to restriction as a way of maintaining ethical standards, or for material reasons. There is a similar relationship between the extension of the market in the interest of greater turnover, and its monopolisation. Today, the interests of writers and publishers lead as a matter of course to greater uniformity of language (Sprachpropaganda), as contrasted to private languages formerly closed by social rank, or privy to particular persons.

Key Concepts

• A social relationship, whether communalisation or sociation, will be called open to outsiders to the degree that participation in the mutual social action oriented to the substantive meaning that constitutes such action is not proscribed by prevailing valid rules to anyone so inclined and able to participate.
• By contrast, a social relationship is closed to outsiders to the extent that its substantive meaning or its prevailing rules exclude such participation, or restrict or permit it only according to specific conditions.
• Openness and closedness can be defined traditionally or affectively, by value or by purposive rationality.
• If the participants anticipate that wider dissemination of the relationship will improve the degree, nature, certainty, or value of their own Chancen, then they are interested in the openness of the relationship; if on the other hand they anticipate that their own Chancen are improved by monopolising it, then they will be interested in closure against outsiders.
• a) traditionally closed communities tend, for example, to be those whose membership is based on family relationships; b) personal relationships based on feelings tend to be affectively closed (relationships of an erotic or pious nature); c) communities that are closed with regard to value rationality tend to be communities of strict belief; d) economic organisations (Verbände) of a monopolistic or plutocratic character are typically closed and purposively rational.
• We can observe that many communalisations and sociations alternate between expansion and closure.
• There is a similar relationship between the extension of the market in the interest of greater turnover, and its monopolisation.

Context

Opening and point 1 of §10, where Weber introduces the concepts of openness and closure of social relationships and links them to forms of motivation and interests in Chancen.