Weber .
1. Weber and Methodological Individualism
For Weber, methodological individualism means that "society" is not a living organism or an autonomous collective entity that acts on its own. Instead, large-scale social structures (like the state, the church, or capitalism) are ultimately the result of meaningful actions, interactions, and subjective motivations of individuals.
When Weber analyzed structures, he viewed them as patterns of probability that individuals will act in certain ways (what he called Verstehen or interpretive understanding). So, your premise that "no society is a group" aligns well with his view that "society" is an abstract concept describing networks of individual social actions, rather than a tangible super-organism.
2. The "Military vs. Industrial" Grouping
Dividing all societies or groupings into military and industrial types, however, does not come from Weber.
The Real Source: This dichotomy is central to Herbert Spencer’s evolutionary sociology. Spencer distinguished between militant societies (characterized by compulsory cooperation, centralized authority, and a focus on defense/war) and industrial societies (characterized by voluntary cooperation, individual liberty, and a focus on production and trade).
Weber’s Typology Instead: Weber classified social action and domination (Herrschaft) differently. His famous types of legitimate authority are:
Traditional authority (based on custom and lineage, like feudalism or patriarchy)
Charismatic authority (based on the exceptional personal qualities of a leader)
Legal-rational authority (based on impersonal rules and laws, characteristic of modern bureaucracies and industrial capitalism)
Summary
While it is true that methodological individualism reduces "society" down to individual actors rather than reified collective groups, reducing all societal groupings specifically to military and industrial types steps away from Weberian sociology and into 19th-century social evolutionism (Spencer).
For Weber, methodological individualism means that "society" is not a living organism or an autonomous collective entity that acts on its own. Instead, large-scale social structures (like the state, the church, or capitalism) are ultimately the result of meaningful actions, interactions, and subjective motivations of individuals.
When Weber analyzed structures, he viewed them as patterns of probability that individuals will act in certain ways (what he called Verstehen or interpretive understanding). So, your premise that "no society is a group" aligns well with his view that "society" is an abstract concept describing networks of individual social actions, rather than a tangible super-organism.
2. The "Military vs. Industrial" Grouping
Dividing all societies or groupings into military and industrial types, however, does not come from Weber.
The Real Source: This dichotomy is central to Herbert Spencer’s evolutionary sociology. Spencer distinguished between militant societies (characterized by compulsory cooperation, centralized authority, and a focus on defense/war) and industrial societies (characterized by voluntary cooperation, individual liberty, and a focus on production and trade).
Weber’s Typology Instead: Weber classified social action and domination (Herrschaft) differently. His famous types of legitimate authority are:
Traditional authority (based on custom and lineage, like feudalism or patriarchy)
Charismatic authority (based on the exceptional personal qualities of a leader)
Legal-rational authority (based on impersonal rules and laws, characteristic of modern bureaucracies and industrial capitalism)
Summary
While it is true that methodological individualism reduces "society" down to individual actors rather than reified collective groups, reducing all societal groupings specifically to military and industrial types steps away from Weberian sociology and into 19th-century social evolutionism (Spencer).