For more information on Max Weber, visit Britannica.com.
On this page
Britannica Concise Encyclopedia:
Max Weber |
For more information on Max Weber, visit Britannica.com.
|
Featured Videos:
|
Gale Encyclopedia of Biography:
Max Weber |
The German social scientist Max Weber (1864-1920) was a founder of modern sociological thought. His historical and comparative studies of the great civilizations are a landmark in the history of sociology.
The work of Max Weber reflects a continued interest in charting the varying paths taken by universal cultural history as reflected in the development of the great world civilizations. In this sense, he wished to attempt a historical and analytical study of the themes sounded so strongly in G. W. F. Hegel's philosophy of history, especially the theme, which Weber took as his own, of the "specific and peculiar rationalism of Western culture." Along with this emphasis on universal cultural history, Weber's detailed training as a legal and economic historian led him to reject the overly simplistic formulas of economic base and corresponding cultural superstructure that were so often used to account for cultural development and were a strong part of the intellectual environment of Weber's early years as student and professor. His historical and comparative erudition and analytical awareness required that he go beyond both the Hegelian and Marxian versions of historical development toward a deep historical and comparative study of sociocultural processes in West and East.
Weber was born on April 21, 1864, in Erfaut, Thuringia, the son of a lawyer active in political life. An attack of meningitis at the age of 4 and his mother's consequent overprotectiveness helped contribute to Weber's sedentary yet intellectually precocious youth. He read widely in the classics and was bored with the unchallenging secondary education of his time, which he completed in 1882. He then attended Heidelberg University, where he studied law, along with history, economics, and philosophy.
After three terms at Heidelberg, Weber served a year in the military, which he found to be largely an "incredible waste of time" with its continued attempts to regiment the human intellect. Resuming his studies at the universities of Berlin and Göttingen in 1884, he passed his bar examination in 1886 and would later practice law for a time. He completed his doctoral thesis in 1889 with an essay on the history of the medieval trading companies, which embodied his interests in both legal and economic history. His second major work, a customary "habilitation" thesis that would qualify him to teach at the university level, appeared in 1891 and involved a study of the economic, cultural, and legal foundations of ancient agrarian history.
In 1893 Weber married Marianne Schnitger. The following year he received an appointment as professor of economics at Freiburg University; in 1896 he accepted a professorship at Heidelberg. Shortly after his father's death in 1897, Weber began to suffer from a psychic disturbance that incapacitated him almost completely until 1902. By the next year he was well enough to join Werner Sombart in editing the Archiv für Sozialwissenschaft and Sozialpolitik (Archives for Social Science and Social Policy), the most prominent German social science journal of the period.
Protestantism and Capitalism
Having assumed his full work load again, Weber began to write perhaps his most renowned essays, published in the Archivin 1904-1905 under the title The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. In them he attempted to link the rise of a new sort of distinctly modern capitalism to the religious ethics of Protestantism, especially the Calvinist variety, with its emphasis on work in a calling directed toward the rational ascetic mastery of this world.
Weber argued that, when the asceticism of the medieval Catholic monastery, oriented toward salvation in a world beyond this one through self-denial exercised by a religious few, was brought into the conduct of everyday affairs, it contributed greatly to the systematic rationalization and functional organization of every sphere of existence, especially economic life. He viewed the Reformation as a crucial period in western European history, one that was to see a fundamental reorientation of basic cultural frameworks of spiritual direction and human outlook and destined to have a great impact on economic life as well as other aspects of modern culture. Within the context of his larger questions, Weber tended to view Protestant rationalism as one further step in the series of stages of increasing rationalization of every area of modern society.
In 1904 Weber was invited to attend the St. Louis Exhibition in Missouri and to deliver a popular sociological lecture. While in America, he had substantial opportunity to encounter what he saw as added evidence for his special thesis in The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, as well as for his more general philosophic and historical concerns. In the United States the religious foundations of modern economic life had seen perhaps their greatest fruition in the enormous "towers of capital, " as Weber called them, of the eastern industrial centers of the country. However, he also recognized that the contemporary American economic life had been stripped of its original ethical and religious impulse. Intense economic competition assumed the character almost of sport, and no obvious possibilities appeared for the resuscitation of new spiritual values from what appeared to be the extensive mechanization of social and economic existence.
Employing a method that isolated the similarities and differences between features of sociocultural development in different societies, Weber attempted to weigh the relative importance of economic, religious, juridical, and other factors in contributing to the different historical outcomes seen in any comparative study of world societies. This larger theme formed one of his central intellectual interests throughout the remainder of his life, and it resulted in the publication of The Religion of China (1915), The Religion of India (1916-1917), and Ancient Judaism (1917-1919). Although he also planned comparable works on early Christianity, medieval Catholicism, and Islamic civilization, he died before they could be completed.
Later Work
After the essays of 1904-1905, Weber took on an even heavier burden of activities than before his illness. His break with the Verein für Sozialpolitik (Union for Social Policy), a long-standing German political and social scientific organization, over the question of the relation of social scientific research to social policy led to the establishment in 1910, with the collaboration of other great social scientists of his day, of the new Deutsche Soziologische Gesellschaft (German Sociological Society).
Weber and his collaborators argued that social science could not be simply subordinated to political values and policies. Rather, there was a logical distinction between the realms of fact and value, one which required a firmly grounded distinction between the analyses of the social scientist and the policies of any political order. Social science must develop "objective" frames of reference, ones "neutral" to any particular political policies and ethical values. This ever-renewed tension between particular ethical stances and "objectivity" in the sciences remained a central part of Weber's concerns in his political activities during and after World War I as well as in his academic writings and lectures.
Economy and Society
In 1909 Weber took over the editorship of a projected multivolume encyclopedic work on the social sciences entitled Outline of Social Economics. It was to contain volumes authored by prominent social scientists of the time. Although he was originally to contribute the volume Economy and Society to this effort, difficulties in obtaining completed manuscripts from some participants led Weber to expand his contribution into what became a prodigious attempt at the construction of a systematic sociology in world historical and comparative depth, one which was to occupy a large portion of his time and energies during the remainder of his life. He published his first contributions in 1911-1913, other still unfinished sections being published after his death.
Economy and Society differed in tone and emphasis from Weber's comparative studies of the cultural foundations of Chinese, Indian, and Western civilizations. This massive work was an attempt at a more systematic sociology, not directed toward any single comparative, historical problem but rather toward an organization of the major areas of sociological inquiry into a single whole. Weber never believed it possible to write a truly systematic sociology that would have separate analytical sections on each area of interest and that would form a general system of theory. Containing large sections on sociological analysis, the economy and social norms, economy and law, domination, and legitimacy, and still unsurpassed sections on religion, the city, and political rulership, Economy and Society remains today perhaps the only systematic sociology in world historical and comparative depth.
Last Years
Despite time spent in the medical service during World War I, Weber's efforts were largely devoted from 1910 to 1919 to the completion of his studies on China, India, and ancient Judaism and to his work on Economy and Society. Many younger as well as more established scholars formed part of Weber's wide intellectual circle during these years. Always desirous of championing the cause of scholars whose work was judged unfairly because of religious, political, or other external criteria, Weber on numerous occasions attempted to aid these young scholars - despite sometimes substantial intellectual differences with them - by securing for them the academic appointments they deserved. Often these attempts were unsuccessful and led Weber into bitter conflicts with many established scholars and political figures over the relation of science to values and the application of extrascientific criteria to the evaluation of a writer's work.
In 1918 Weber resumed his teaching duties. One result was a series of lectures in 1919-1920, "Universal Economic History, " which was published posthumously from students' notes as General Economic History. Along with this lecture series, Weber delivered two addresses in 1918, "Science as a Vocation" and "Politics as a Vocation, " in which he voiced ethical themes that had occupied him in his scholarly work and in his numerous discussions of social policy. In these two addresses he contrasted the ethic of unalterable ultimate ends so characteristic of uncompromising religious and political prophets with the ethic of consequences so necessary in political life, in which possible outcomes of actions and policies are agonizingly weighed and the least undesirable course determined in light of a plurality of given goals. Variants of this distinction pervaded much of Weber's own view of political and religious life and formed a central aspect of his ethical philosophy.
Thus, Weber sounded ethical themes that have become a central part of the "existentialist" philosophical orientation of our time. Understanding the dilemma of modern men caught between the older religious systems of the past and the cynical power politics of the present, he gave no simple solutions and was willing neither to wait for new prophets nor to abdicate all ethical responsibility for the conduct of life because of its seeming ultimate "meaninglessness."
Weber died in Munich on June 14, 1920. His work forms a major part of the historical foundation of sociology.
Further Reading
Biographical background on Weber as well as an analysis of his major intellectual orientation can be found in the "Introduction" to From Max Weber:Essays in Sociology, edited by Hans H. Gerth and C. Wright Mills (1946). An interpretation of Weber's life and work, emphasizing analytical motifs derived from Freudianism and the sociology of knowledge, is provided by Arthur Mitzman, The Iron Cage: An Historical Interpretation of Max Weber (1970).
There are a number of readily accessible general treatments of Weber's sociology. Volume 2 of Raymond Aron, Main Currents of Sociological Thought (2 vols., 1965-1967), contains an excellent treatment of Weber, recommended for beginning students. Julien Freund, The Sociology of Max Weber (1966; trans. 1968), is overly systematic, yet chapters 1 and 2 are helpful as an introduction to Weber's vision of society and his method. Reinhard Bendix, Max Weber: An Intellectual Portrait (1960), gives a depth analysis of Weber's historical works but is recommended for more advanced study. Talcott Parsons, The Structure of Social Action (1937; 2d ed. 1949), gives a penetrating and difficult treatment of some elements of Weber's theoretical perspective.
In addition to Mitzman's study, helpful insights into the social, political, and intellectual background of the period are in Koppel S. Pinson, Modern Germany: Its History and Civilization (1954; 2d ed. 1966), and Walter M. Simon, Germany: A Brief History (1966).
Oxford Dictionary of Politics:
Max Weber |
(1864-1920) German sociologist; one of the most influential figures in the history of the discipline. Born in Erfurt, and moving to Berlin in 1869, Weber grew up in a prosperous household intimately connected with the academic and political life of Bismarckian Germany. His father, a worldly politician, became a member of the Reichstag whilst his mother was guided by a strong sense of religious duty. Weber read law, history, economics, and philosophy at the universities of Heidelberg, Göttingen, and Berlin, also attending seminars at Strasbourg during his military service. 1886 he qualified as a junior barrister whilst working towards the first of his doctoral theses on the legal and economic history of medieval trading companies, awarded in 1889, and followed two years later by his ‘habilitation’ thesis on the agrarian history of Rome. Weber took up a professorship of economics at Freiburg after some teaching in Berlin. A chair in politics at Heidelberg (1896) marked a high point in his teaching career. The following year saw a quarrel with his father (mainly over the latter's treatment of Weber's mother) who died unreconciled to his son. This conflict seems to have precipitated the psychological and physical breakdown of Weber's health. He did not return to teaching until towards the end of his life when he held professorships in Vienna and Munich.
Prior to his breakdown Weber had written on the stock exchange and ‘traditionalism’ amongst farm workers; topics which gave some impetus to later works. He became active in nationalist politics, joined the Pan-German League but withdrew on health grounds and because of disagreements over policy. After several years of illness a new phase of productivity began in the period 1902-4 when he took an honorary professorship at Heidelberg; worked on a series of methodological essays; and began his study of the formation of the modern world order, the first fruit of which was The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. Thereafter Weber expanded his interests into a comparative study of the ‘economic ethics of the world religions’ which, when combined with the studies of Rome and the Middle Ages, provided an analysis of cultures on an unmatched scale. Even so he would be the first to admit that they were incomplete. Such incompleteness was both a practical matter and an issue of epistemological principle: all knowledge was necessarily partial. The last years of his life were mainly devoted to drawing together these strands in Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretative Sociology (see also General Economic History). Like Marx's Capital, Weber's Economy and Society is a vast, complex, but ultimately incomplete text.
During the First World War Weber worked on the organization of military hospitals; he was a member of the German Delegation to the 1919 Versailles Conference; became a member of the executive of the German Democratic Party and, in that year, commenced his teaching at the University of Munich. After a short illness he died of pneumonia on 14 June 1920.
An outline of Weber's work can best set out from the philosophical, methodological, and ethical outlook which colours so much else. Epistemologically speaking, the essential antinomy is that between the infinite complexity of the potentially knowable and our finite capacity to know. For Weber, reality cannot be reduced to a set of brute facts; knowledge of that reality is formed by the interdependence of ‘fact’ and ‘theory’. The central issue is the understanding and explanation of action. This focus is often misinterpreted as a will to believe in our psychological capacity to rethink or relive the actor's thoughts and to be incongruously matched to a model of explanation drawn from the natural sciences. Neither point does justice to Weber's methodology. The capacity to understand rests, not on psychological insights, but upon historical scholarship, empirical research, and ultimately upon the humanist assumption that the actor's intentions are in principle accessible, however difficult such access may, in practice, prove to be. Similarly the model of explanation is rooted, not in natural science, but in jurisprudence and legal theories of causality.
Weber's anti-empiricist stance rules out the possibility of direct observation of social life. His concepts or ‘ideal types’ are abstract exaggerations of phenomena which, in their pure form, cannot be found in reality. Idealizations of this kind (e.g. ‘class’, ‘status’, ‘party’, ‘power’, ‘charisma’, ‘feudalism’, ‘sect’, and so on) are, for Weber, not the main goal of sociological analysis but they do assist the understanding of the complexities of social phenomena. The very unreality of the ideal types highlights the empirical details, contradictions, and ambiguities of the subject-matter. Precisely because ideal types can be constructed from varying points of view, analysis knows no final resting point.
The analysis of power and domination illustrates something of Weber's approach. ‘Power’ is defined as any situation in which actors can realize their ends despite the resistance of others. ‘Domination’ is more specific, referring to the exercise of power through a command and the probability that such commands will be obeyed. Here the assumption is that power will normally be exercised through an administrative staff. The most enduring forms of domination are those to which, on whatever basis, ‘legitimacy’ is ascribed by the participants. Thus Weber seeks to develop a set of ideal types of legitimate domination through which the historical and contemporary variety of political arrangements might be analysed. These types are belief in legitimacy grounded in ‘traditional’ (an immemorial order), ‘charismatic’ (the special qualities—often divinely ordained—of the leader), or ‘legal’ (the due process of law) criteria.
The idea of legitimacy rests upon the actor's subjective belief (or lack of it) in the system—an orientation which blends with the focus on the ‘meaningful’. Weber does not confuse these idealized forms with reality. A conceptual framework structured around an actor's subjective beliefs in legitimacy does not require acceptance of the claim that such legitimation actually exists. Nothing could be further from Weber's view of the political order as an arena of conflict—largely between classes, status groups, and parties, all of which are phenomena of the distribution of power. Finally, the typology of domination is not a portrayal of specific political structures but is, rather, a range of concepts through which a system can be analysed. The point being that the existence of all forms of domination is a contingent matter and this contingency rules out a deterministic progression from one form to another. Certainly legal and bureaucratic elements are very strongly present in Weber's view of the modern order but there is no neat development from, say, charisma to traditionalism to legality. Quite to the contrary, Weber saw, even in the modern world, the possibility of charismatic leadership as a source of revolutionary breakthroughs.
The analysis of domination forms a considerable part of Weber's sociology but it would be wrong to restrict the ‘political’ to this area. The social implications of religions are, for example, a theme to which he frequently returns. The concept of legitimacy resonates with theological issues—justification, salvation doctrines, and theodicies. Those having the good things in life wish to legitimate their holdings and one of the most powerful roots of such legitimation is a belief in divine approval of the existing arrangements. These observations raise the question of the relationship between morality, politics, and science. Weber's underlying premiss is that actors have a will to believe in the ‘meaningful’ nature of their endeavours and that social science must explore this. Such exploration confronts the world of values head on.
There are a number of strands to this confrontation. Weber had no intentions of rejecting the world of values in the search for scientific analysis. Often the aims of investigation included the desire to force both analyst and audience to face moral and political issues as well as the pursuit of knowledge. However, Weber found it both logically untenable and morally repugnant to claim that research could underpin questions of ultimate value. Science could not tell us how to live or what to do, but this prohibition did not prevent him from a vigorous advocacy of German national interests. Of course Weber never thought that these views could masquerade as science. The latter provided clarity, analysed means to ends, and indicated the possible consequences of action. None of these achievements replace the obligation to make political and moral choices. To live for science and for politics are, to Weber, matters of intense commitment (in contrast to the lack of passion in Nietzsche's ‘last men’) the poignancy of which was heightened by the ‘polar night of icy darkness and hardness’ confronting post-1918 Germany. The politician confronts this darkness through the ‘ethic of responsibility’: that is, one in which responsibility for the consequences of action is ever at hand. Weber contrasts this with an ‘ethic of conviction’ rooted in absolute and ultimate ends which leave aside worldly consideration of the consequences of that action.
This concern with the demands of the day is rooted in Weber's analysis of the development of rationalization and of capitalism in both its ‘adventure’ or ‘booty’ form and as the distinctive characteristic of the modern economic order. In this order, formally rational bourgeois capitalism and bureaucracy proceeded apace—although the growth of bureaucracy is, for Weber, by no means restricted to capitalism. He sees socialism as at least an equal contributor to this growth.
There are many views on the significance of Weber, and deep divisions remain as to the interpretation of his work. Criticisms include the ‘unreality’ of ideal types and, frequently, a rejection of his views on the separation of facts and values. Nevertheless, few would doubt his place as a thinker of the first rank. In methodology, comparative sociology, economic history, and the sociologies of law, religion, and politics, he left an enduring legacy in
(1) A refusal to confuse scientific and moral propositions whilst maintaining an awareness of their complex relationships.
(2) The production of a multilayered, multicausal, and self-consciously incomplete picture of the social world. Here explanation is frustratingly elusive and stands apart from closed meta-narratives based upon ‘laws’, ‘structures’, and the ‘logic of history’.
(3) An important perspective upon the great transformation to modernity.
— Ivan Oliver
Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy:
Max Weber |
Weber, Max (1864-1920) German sociologist and philosopher. Born in Berlin into a liberal legal family, Weber studied law and the history of law at various universities. He had a brief academic career as professor of economics in Freiburg and Heidelberg, before retiring through the onset of ill-health in 1897. Weber is remembered philosophically first for insisting on the distinction between fact and value, and for insisting that the conduct of the social sciences must be value-free. He is remembered secondly for his adherence to the Verstehen tradition of Dilthey. On the first issue, Weber argued that scientific, historical, and philosophical analysis of a period could never by itself provide the criteria necessary for a definitive solution of evaluative questions, including those of politics. The social scientist must strictly distinguish between that which exists, and that which ought to be: the importance Weber attached to this reflects his concern at the increasing power of faceless, impersonal bureaucracy, making evaluative decisions on purely ‘scientific’ and technological criteria. On the second, connected, issue he recognized that sociological study must recognize that actions have a meaning in the eyes of agents, and no scientific approach to them that ignores that dimension can be adequate. The sociologist must be able to place himself in the mind of those he studies. The subjectivity that this might seem to introduce is avoided by the discipline of describing the ‘ideal type’, embodying the objective spirit of bureaucracy, Calvinism, capitalism, etc.
Weber insisted that no understanding is complete without including the moral, political, and religious dimension of the concerted activities of human agents. His most famous work, Die protestantische Ethik und der Geist des Kapitalismus (1922, trs. as The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, 1930), connected the rise of capitalism with the complacent Protestant desire to find a sign of predestined salvation in worldly success (see also elective affinity). Weber realized that such studies require comparative analysis of other cultures and times, and much of his writing addresses that problem. Important theoretical works include Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft (1922, trs. as Economy and Society, 1968) and the collected papers translated in The Methodology of the Social Sciences (1949).
Columbia Encyclopedia:
Max Weber |
Bibliography
See From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology (with a biography and appraisal by H. H. Gerth and C. Wright Mills, 1946); studies by J. Freund (1968), A. Mitzman (1969), W. G. Runciman (1972), D. Beetham (1974), W. J. Mommsen (1974), G. Roth (1979), and J. Alexander (1983).
West's Encyclopedia of American Law:
Weber, Max |
Max Weber was a German sociologist and political economist who is best known for his theory of the development of Western capitalism that is based on the "Protestant Ethic." In addition, Weber wrote widely on law and religion, including groundbreaking work on the importance of bureaucracy in modern society. He also worked to establish the discipline of sociology based on an objective scholarship.
Weber was born on April 21, 1864, in Erfurt, Germany, into a wealthy manufacturing family. He studied at the Universities of Heidelberg and Berlin and joined the faculty at Heidelberg in 1896. A prolific writer and scholar, Weber resigned his professorship in 1907 after coming into an inheritance that made him financially independent, allowing him to devote all his energies to scholarship.
Weber's most famous work, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (1904-1905), introduced the concept of the "Protestant Ethic." Weber theorized that certain Protestant religious beliefs promoted the growth of capitalism. He claimed a relationship existed between success in capitalist ventures and Protestant (in particular, Calvinist and Puritan sects) theology. The Calvinist doctrine of predestination posited that individuals could never know if they were to receive God's salvation. This doctrine bred psychological insecurity in John Calvin's followers, who eventually looked for signs that might indicate they were in God's grace. From this search for signs developed the Protestant Ethic, which called for unceasing commitment to work and ascetic abstinence from any enjoyment of the profit realized from such labors. The result, Weber argued, was the rapid accumulation of capital that fueled the rise of Western capitalism.
Weber also analyzed how politics, government, and law have developed in Western and non-Western cultures. He proposed the idea of the charismatic leader, who exhibited both religious and political authority. Weber was more interested, however, in the development of modern government and the growth of bureaucracy. Bureaucracy is a method of organization based on specialization of duties, action according to rules, and a stable order of authority. For Weber, bureaucracy was an expression of "rationality," which in his terminology meant the use of rules and procedures to determine outcomes rather than sentiment, tradition, or rules of thumb.
Weber's sociological theories had a great impact on twentieth century sociology. He developed the notion of "ideal types," which were examples of situations in history that could be used as reference points to compare and contrast different societies. This approach analyzes the basic elements of social institutions and examines how these elements relate to one another.
Weber died on June 14, 1920, in Munich, Germany.
Quotes By:
Max Weber |
Quotes:
"Only by strict specialization can the scientific worker become fully conscious, for once and perhaps never again in his lifetime, that he has achieved something that will endure. A really definitive and good accomplishment is today always a specialized ac"
"The fate of our times is characterized by rationalization and intellectualization and, above all, by the disenchantment of the world. Precisely the ultimate and most sublime values have retreated from public life either into the transcendental realm of mystic life or into the brotherliness of direct and personal human relations. It is not accidental that our greatest art is intimate and not monumental."
"Only he has the calling for politics who is sure that he will not crumble when the world from his point of view is too stupid or base for what he wants to offer. Only he who in the face of all this can say In spite of all! has the calling for politics."
"One can say that three pre-eminent qualities are decisive for the politician: passion, a feeling of responsibility, and a sense of proportion."
"No sociologist should think himself too good, even in his old age, to make tens of thousands of quite trivial computations in his head and perhaps for months at a time. One cannot with impunity try to transfer this task entirely to mechanical assistants if one wishes to figure something, even though the final result is often small indeed."
"The nation is burdened with the heavy curse on those who come afterwards. The generation before us was inspired by an activism and a naive enthusiasm, which we cannot rekindle, because we confront tasks of a different kind from those which our fathers faced."
See more famous quotes by
Max Weber
Dictionary of Cultural Literacy: Science:
Max Weber |
A German sociologist of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Weber maintained that modern capitalist society is created when technical advances require administration by a bureaucracy. Disagreeing with Karl Marx, Weber argued against the inevitability of revolution by the proletariat and the triumph of socialism, maintaining that social and political ideology can act independently of economic and material conditions. He also wrote extensively on the Protestant work ethic. Weber's research methods established the foundations of social science research, as distinct from the natural sciences.
Wikipedia on Answers.com:
Max Weber |
| Max Weber | |
|---|---|
German sociologist and political economist |
|
| Born | 21 April 1864 Erfurt, Prussian Saxony |
| Died | 14 June 1920 (aged 56) (pneumonia) Munich, Bavaria |
| Nationality | German |
| Fields | Economics, sociology, history, law, politics, philosophy |
| Institutions | University of Berlin, University of Freiburg, University of Heidelberg, University of Vienna, University of Munich |
| Alma mater | University of Berlin, University of Heidelberg |
| Doctoral advisor | Levin Goldschmidt |
| Known for | Bureaucracy, Disenchantment, Ideal type, Iron cage, Life chances, Methodological individualism, Monopoly on violence, Protestant work ethic, Rationalisation, Social action, Three-component theory of stratification, Tripartite classification of authority, Verstehen |
| Influences | Immanuel Kant, Friedrich Nietzsche, Wilhelm Dilthey, Heinrich Rickert, Georg Simmel, Werner Sombart |
| Influenced | Karl Jaspers, Talcott Parsons, Ludwig von Mises, György Lukács, Theodor W. Adorno, Jürgen Habermas, Joseph Schumpeter |
Karl Emil Maximilian "Max" Weber (German pronunciation: [ˈmaks ˈveːbɐ]; 21 April 1864 – 14 June 1920) was a German sociologist and political economist who profoundly influenced social theory, social research, and the discipline of sociology itself.[1]
Weber was a key proponent of methodological antipositivism, presenting sociology as a non-empiricist field which must study social action through interpretive means based upon understanding the meanings and purposes that individuals attach to their own actions. Weber is often cited, with Émile Durkheim and Karl Marx, as one of the three principal architects of modern social science.[2][3][4]
Weber's main intellectual concern was understanding the processes of rationalisation, secularization, and "disenchantment" that he associated with the rise of capitalism and modernity.[5] Weber is perhaps best known for his thesis combining economic sociology and the sociology of religion, elaborated in his book The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. Weber proposed that ascetic Protestantism was one of the major "elective affinities" associated with the rise of capitalism, bureaucracy and the rational-legal nation-state in the Western world. Against Marx's "historical materialism," Weber emphasised the importance of cultural influences embedded in religion as a means for understanding the genesis of capitalism.[6] The Protestant Ethic formed the earliest part in Weber's broader investigations into world religion: he would go on to examine the religions of China, the religions of India and ancient Judaism, with particular regard to the apparent non-development of capitalism in the corresponding societies, as well as to their differing forms of social stratification.[a]
In another major work, Politics as a Vocation, Weber defined the state as an entity which successfully claims a "monopoly on the legitimate use of violence". He was also the first to categorize social authority into distinct forms, which he labelled as charismatic, traditional, and rational-legal. His analysis of bureaucracy emphasised that modern state institutions are increasingly based on rational-legal authority. Weber also made a variety of other contributions in economic history, as well as economic theory and methodology. Weber's thought on modernity and rationalisation would come to facilitate critical theory of the Frankfurt school.
After the First World War, Max Weber was among the founders of the liberal German Democratic Party. He also ran unsuccessfully for a seat in parliament and served as advisor to the committee that drafted the ill-fated democratic Weimar Constitution of 1919. After contracting the Spanish flu, he died of pneumonia in 1920, aged 56.[2]
|
Contents
|
Weber was born in 1864, in Erfurt, Thuringia.[2] He was the eldest of the seven children of Max Weber Sr., a wealthy and prominent civil servant and member of the National Liberal Party, and his wife Helene Fallenstein, who descended from French Huguenot immigrants and held strong moral absolutist ideas.[2][7] Weber Sr.'s involvement in public life immersed his home in both politics and academia, as his salon welcomed many prominent scholars and public figures.[2] The young Weber and his brother Alfred, who also became a sociologist and economist, thrived in this intellectual atmosphere. Weber's 1876 Christmas presents to his parents, when he was thirteen years old, were two historical essays entitled "About the course of German history, with special reference to the positions of the Emperor and the Pope," and "About the Roman Imperial period from Constantine to the migration of nations."[8] In class, bored and unimpressed with the teachers – who in turn resented what they perceived as a disrespectful attitude – he secretly read all forty volumes of Goethe.[9][10] Before entering the university, he would read many other classical works.[10] Over time, Weber would also be significantly affected by the marital tension between his father, "a man who enjoyed earthly pleasures," and his mother, a devout Calvinist "who sought to lead an ascetic life."[11][12]
In 1882 Weber enrolled in the University of Heidelberg as a law student.[13] After a year of military service he transferred to University of Berlin.[9] After his first few years as a student, during which he spent much time "drinking beer and fencing," Weber would increasingly take his mother's side in family arguments and grew estranged from his father.[11][12][14] Simultaneously with his studies, he worked as a junior barrister.[9] In 1886 Weber passed the examination for Referendar, comparable to the bar association examination in the British and American legal systems. Throughout the late 1880s, Weber continued his study of law and history.[9] He earned his law doctorate in 1889 by writing a dissertation on legal history entitled The History of Medieval Business Organisations; his advisor was Levin Goldschmidt, a respected authority in commercial law.[13][15] Two years later, Weber completed his Habilitationsschrift, The Roman Agrarian History and its Significance for Public and Private Law, working with August Meitzen.[15][16] Having thus become a Privatdozent, Weber joined the University of Berlin's faculty, lecturing and consulting for the government.[17]
In the years between the completion of his dissertation and habilitation, Weber took an interest in contemporary social policy. In 1888 he joined the Verein für Socialpolitik,[18] a new professional association of German economists affiliated with the historical school, who saw the role of economics primarily as finding solutions to the social problems of the age and who pioneered large scale statistical studies of economic issues. He also involved himself in politics, joining the left-leaning Evangelical Social Congress.[19] In 1890 the Verein established a research program to examine "the Polish question" or Ostflucht: the influx of Polish farm workers into eastern Germany as local labourers migrated to Germany's rapidly industrialising cities.[2] Weber was put in charge of the study and wrote a large part of the final report,[2][18] which generated considerable attention and controversy and marked the beginning of Weber's renown as a social scientist.[2] From 1893 to 1899 Weber was a member of the Alldeutscher Verband (Pan-German League), an organisation that campaigned against the influx of the Polish workers; the degree of Weber's support for the Germanisation of Poles and similar nationalist policies is still debated by modern scholars.[20][21]
Also in 1893 he married his distant cousin Marianne Schnitger, later a feminist activist and author in her own right,[2][22] who was instrumental in collecting and publishing Weber's journal articles as books after his death and her biography of him is an important source for understanding Weber's life.[23][24] They would have no children.[14] The marriage granted long-awaited financial independence to Weber, allowing him to finally leave his parents' household.[12] The couple moved to Freiburg in 1894, where Weber was appointed professor of economics at the university,[16][17] before accepting the same position at the University of Heidelberg in 1896.[16][17] There Weber became a central figure in the so-called "Weber Circle," composed of other intellectuals such as his wife Marianne, Georg Jellinek, Ernst Troeltsch, Werner Sombart, Marc Bloch, Robert Michels and György Lukács.[2] Weber also remained active in Verein and the Evangelical Social Congress.[2] His research in that period was focused on economics and legal history.[25]
In 1897 Max Weber Sr. died, two months after a severe quarrel with his son that was never resolved.[2][26] After this, Weber became increasingly prone to depression, nervousness and insomnia, making it difficult for him to fulfill his duties as a professor.[9][16] His condition forced him to reduce his teaching and leave unfinished his course in the fall of 1899. After spending months in a sanatorium during the summer and fall of 1900, Weber and his wife travelled to Italy at the end of the year and did not return to Heidelberg until April 1902. He would again withdraw from teaching in 1903 and not return to it till 1919.[2]
After Weber's immense productivity in the early 1890s, he did not publish any papers between early 1898 and late 1902, finally resigning his professorship in late 1903. Freed from those obligations, in that year he accepted a position as associate editor of the Archives for Social Science and Social Welfare,[27] where he worked with his colleagues Edgar Jaffé and Werner Sombart.[2][28] His new interests would lie in more fundamental issues of social sciences; his works from this latter period are of primary interest to modern scholars.[25] In 1904, Weber began to publish some of his most seminal papers in this journal, notably his essay The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, which became his most famous work[29] and laid the foundations for his later research on the impact of cultures and religions on the development of economic systems.[30] This essay was the only one of his works from that period that was published as a book during his lifetime. Some other of his works written in the first one and a half decades of the 20th century – published posthumously and dedicated primarily from the fields of sociology of religion, economic and legal sociology – are also recognised as among his most important intellectual contributions.[2]
Also in 1904, he visited the United States and participated in the Congress of Arts and Sciences held in connection with the World's Fair (Louisiana Purchase Exposition) in St. Louis. Despite his partial recovery, Weber felt that he was unable to resume regular teaching at that time and continued on as a private scholar, helped by an inheritance in 1907.[17][27] In 1909, disappointed with the Verein, he co-founded the German Sociological Association (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Soziologie, or DGS) and served as its first treasurer.[2] He would, however, resign from the DGS in 1912.[2] In 1912, Weber tried to organise a left-wing political party to combine social-democrats and liberals. This attempt was unsuccessful, in part because many liberals feared social-democratic revolutionary ideals.[31]
At the outbreak of World War I, Weber, aged 50, volunteered for service and was appointed as a reserve officer and put in charge of organising the army hospitals in Heidelberg, a role he fulfilled until the end of 1915.[27][32] Weber's views on the war and the expansion of the German empire changed during the course of the conflict.[31][32][33] Early on he supported the nationalist rhetoric and the war effort, believing that the fight against the backward and despotic Russian Empire was justified and that a "liberal imperialism" along the lines of the British model would help Germany to develop a more mature political class. In time, however, Weber became one of the most prominent critics of German expansionism and of the Kaiser's war policies.[2] He publicly attacked the Belgian annexation policy and unrestricted submarine warfare and later supported calls for constitutional reform, democratisation and universal suffrage.[2]
Weber joined the worker and soldier council of Heidelberg in 1918. He then served in the German delegation to the Paris Peace Conference and as advisor to the Confidential Committee for Constitutional Reform, which drafted the Weimar Constitution.[27] Motivated by his understanding of the American model, he advocated a strong, popularly elected presidency as a constitutional counter-balance to the power of the professional bureaucracy.[2] More controversially, he also defended the provisions for emergency presidential powers that became Article 48 of the Weimar Constitution. These provisions were later used by Adolf Hitler to subvert the rest of the constitution and institute rule by decree, allowing his regime to suppress opposition and gain dictatorial powers.[34]
Weber also ran, unsuccessfully, for a parliamentary seat, as a member of the liberal German Democratic Party, which he had co-founded.[2][35] He opposed both the leftist German Revolution of 1918–1919 and the ratification of the Treaty of Versailles, a principled position that defied the political alignments in Germany at that time[2] and which may have prevented Friedrich Ebert, the new social-democratic President of Germany, from appointing Weber as minister or ambassador.[32] Weber commanded widespread respect but relatively little influence.[2] Weber's role in German politics remains controversial to this day.
Frustrated with politics, Weber resumed teaching during this time, first at the University of Vienna, then, after 1919, at the University of Munich.[2][17][27] His lectures from that period were collected into major works, such as the General Economic History, Science as a Vocation and Politics as a Vocation.[2] In Munich, he headed the first German university institute of sociology, but never held a professorial position in sociology. Many colleagues and students in Munich attacked his response to the German Revolution and some right-wing students held protests in front of his home.[31] Max Weber contracted the Spanish flu and died of pneumonia in Munich on 14 June 1920.[2] At the time of his death, Weber had not finished writing his magnum opus on sociological theory: Economy and Society. His widow Marianne helped prepare it for its publication in 1921–22.
Weber's thinking was strongly influenced by German idealism and particularly by neo-Kantianism, to which he had been exposed through Heinrich Rickert, his professorial colleague at the University of Freiburg.[2] Especially important to Weber's work is the neo-Kantian belief that reality is essentially chaotic and incomprehensible, with all rational order deriving from the way in which the human mind focuses its attention on certain aspects of reality and organises the resulting perceptions.[2] Weber's opinions regarding the methodology of the social sciences show parallels with the work of contemporary neo-Kantian philosopher and pioneering sociologist Georg Simmel.[36]
Weber was also influenced by Kantian ethics, which he nonetheless came to think of as obsolete in a modern age lacking in religious certainties. In this last respect, the influence of Friedrich Nietzsche's philosophy is evident.[2] According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, the "deep tension between the Kantian moral imperatives and a Nietzschean diagnosis of the modern cultural world is apparently what gives such a darkly tragic and agnostic shade to Weber's ethical worldview."[2] Though the influence of his mother's Calvinist religiosity is evident throughout Weber's life and work, and though he maintained a deep, life-long interest in the study of religions, Weber was open about the fact that he was personally irreligious.[37][38]
As a political economist and economic historian, Weber belonged to the "youngest" German historical school of economics, represented by academics such as Gustav von Schmoller and his student Werner Sombart. But, even though Weber's research interests were very much in line with that school, his views on methodology and the theory of value diverged significantly from those of other German historicists and were closer, in fact, to those of Carl Menger and the Austrian School, the traditional rivals of the historical school.[39][40] (See section on Economics.)
Unlike some other classical figures (Comte, Durkheim) Weber did not attempt, consciously, to create any specific set of rules governing social sciences in general, or sociology in particular.[2] Compared to Durkheim and Marx, Weber was more focused on individuals and culture and this is clear in his methodology.[9] Whereas Durkheim focused on the society, Weber concentrated on the individuals and their actions (see structure and action discussion) and whereas Marx argued for the primacy of the material world over the world of ideas, Weber valued ideas as motivating actions of individuals, at least in the big picture.[9][41][42]
Sociology, for Max Weber, is:
...a science which attempts the interpretive understanding of social action in order thereby to arrive at a causal explanation of its course and effects.—Max Weber[43]
Weber was concerned with the question of objectivity and subjectivity.[2] Weber distinguished social action from social behaviour, noting that social action must be understood through how individuals subjectively relate to one another.[2][44] Study of social action through interpretive means (Verstehen) must be based upon understanding the subjective meaning and purpose that the individual attaches to their actions.[2][25] Social actions may have easily identifiable and objective means, but much more subjective ends and the understanding of those ends by a scientists is subject to yet another layer of subjective understanding (that of the scientist).[2] Weber noted that the importance of subjectivity in social sciences makes creation of fool-proof, universal laws much more difficult than in natural sciences and that the amount of objective knowledge that social sciences may achieve is precariously limited.[2] Overall, Weber supported the goal of objective science, but he noted that it is an unreachable goal – although one definitely worth striving for.[2]
There is no absolutely "objective" scientific analysis of culture... All knowledge of cultural reality... is always knowledge from particular points of view. ... an "objective" analysis of cultural events, which proceeds according to the thesis that the ideal of science is the reduction of empirical reality to "laws," is meaningless... [because]... the knowledge of social laws is not knowledge of social reality but is rather one of the various aids used by our minds for attaining this end.—Max Weber, "Objectivity" in Social Science, 1897[45]
The principle of "methodological individualism," which holds that social scientists should seek to understand collectivities (such as nations, cultures, governments, churches, corporations, etc.) solely as the result and the context of the actions of individual persons, can be traced to Weber, particularly to the first chapter of Economy and Society, in which he argues that only individuals "can be treated as agents in a course of subjectively understandable action."[40][44] In other words, Weber argued that social phenomena can be understood scientifically only to the extent that they are captured by models of the behaviour of purposeful individuals, models which Weber called "ideal types," from which actual historical events will necessarily deviate due to accidental and irrational factors.[40] The analytical constructs of an ideal type never exist in reality, but provide objective benchmarks against which real-life constructs can be measured.[46]
We know of no scientifically ascertainable ideals. To be sure, that makes our efforts more arduous than in the past, since we are expected to create our ideals from within our breast in the very age of subjectivist culture.—Max Weber, 1909[47]
Weber's methodology was developed in the context of a wider debate about methodology of social sciences, the Methodenstreit.[25] Weber's position was close to historicism, as he understood social actions as being heavily tied to particular historical contexts and its analysis required the understanding of subjective motivations of individuals (social actors).[25] Thus Weber's methodology emphasises the use of comparative historical analysis.[48] Therefore, Weber was more interested in explaining how a certain outcome was the result of various historical processes rather than predicting an outcome of those processes in the future.[42]
Many scholars have described rationalisation and the question of individual freedom in an increasingly rational society, as the main theme of Weber's work.[2][49][50][51] This theme was situated in the larger context of the relationship between psychological motivations, cultural values and beliefs (primarily, religion) and the structure of the society (usually determined by the economy).[42]
By rationalisation, Weber understood first, the individual cost-benefit calculation, second, the wider, bureaucratic organisation of the organisations and finally, in the more general sense as the opposite of understanding the reality through mystery and magic (disenchantment).[51]
The fate of our times is characterised by rationalisation and intellectualisation and, above all, by the "disenchantment of the world"—Max Weber[52]
Weber began his studies of the subject in The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, in which he argued that the redefinition of the connection between work and piety in Protestantism and especially in ascetic Protestant denominations, particularly Calvinism, shifted human effort towards rational efforts aimed at achieving economic gain.[53][54] In Protestant religion, Christian piety towards God was expressed through one's secular vocation (secularisation of calling).[54] The rational roots of this doctrine, he argued, soon grew incompatible with and larger than the religious and so the latter were eventually discarded.[55]
Weber continued his investigation into this matter in later works, notably in his studies on bureaucracy and on the classification of legitimate authority into three types – Rational-legal, traditional and charismatic – of which the legitimate (or rational) is the dominant one in the modern world.[2] In these works Weber described what he saw as society's movement towards rationalisation.[2] Similarly, rationalisation could be seen in the economy, with the development of highly rational and calculating capitalism.[2] Weber also saw rationalisation as one of the main factors setting the European West apart from the rest of the world.[2] Rationalisation relied on deep changes in ethics, religion, psychology and culture; changes that first took place in the Western civilisation.[2]
What Weber depicted was not only the secularisation of Western culture, but also and especially the development of modern societies from the viewpoint of rationalisation. The new structures of society were marked by the differentiation of the two functionally intermeshing systems that had taken shape around the organisational cores of the capitalist enterprise and the bureaucratic state apparatus. Weber understood this process as the institutionalisation of purposive-rational economic and administrative action. To the degree that everyday life was affected by this cultural and societal rationalisation, traditional forms of life – which in the early modern period were differentiated primarily according to one's trade – were dissolved.—Jürgen Habermas, Modernity's Consciousness of Time, 1985, [5]
Features of rationalisation include increasing knowledge, growing impersonality and enhanced control of social and material life.[2] Weber was ambivalent towards rationalisation; while admitting it was responsible for many advances, in particular, freeing humans from traditional, restrictive and illogical social guidelines, he also criticised it for dehumanising individuals as "cogs in the machine" and curtailing their freedom, trapping them in the bureaucratic iron cage of rationality and bureaucracy.[2][49][56][57] Related to rationalisation is the process of disenchantment, in which the world is becoming more explained and less mystical, moving from polytheistic religions to monotheistic ones and finally to the Godless science of modernity.[2] Those processes affect all of society, removing "sublime values... from public life" and making art less creative.[58]
In a dystopian critique of rationalisation, Weber notes that modern society is a product of an individualistic drive of the Reformation, yet at the same time, the society created in this process is less and less welcoming of individualism.[2]
How is it at all possible to salvage any remnants of 'individual' freedom of movement in any sense given this all-powerful trend?—Max Weber[2]
Weber's work in the field of sociology of religion started with the essay The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism and continued with the analysis of The Religion of China: Confucianism and Taoism, The Religion of India: The Sociology of Hinduism and Buddhism and Ancient Judaism. His work on other religions was interrupted by his sudden death in 1920, which prevented him from following Ancient Judaism with studies of early Christianity and Islam.[59] His three main themes in the essays were the effect of religious ideas on economic activities, the relation between social stratification and religious ideas and the distinguishable characteristics of Western civilization.[60]
Weber saw religion as one of the core forces in the society.[48] His goal was to find reasons for the different development paths of the cultures of the Occident and the Orient, although without judging or valuing them, like some of the contemporary thinkers who followed the social Darwinist paradigm; Weber wanted primarily to explain the distinctive elements of the Western civilisation.[60] In the analysis of his findings, Weber maintained that Calvinist (and more widely, Protestant) religious ideas had had a major impact on the social innovation and development of the economic system of the West, but noted that they were not the only factors in this development. Other notable factors mentioned by Weber included the rationalism of scientific pursuit, merging observation with mathematics, science of scholarship and jurisprudence, rational systematisation and bureaucratisation of government administration and economic enterprise.[60] In the end, the study of the sociology of religion, according to Weber, focused on one distinguishing part of the Western culture, the decline of beliefs in magic, or what he referred to as "disenchantment of the world".[60]
Weber also proposed a socioevolutionary model of religious change, showing that in general, societies have moved from magic to polytheism, then to pantheism, monotheism and finally, ethical monotheism.[61] According to Weber, this evolution occurred as the growing economic stability allowed professionalisation and the evolution of ever more sophisticated priesthood.[62] As societies grew more complex and encompassed different groups, a hierarchy of gods developed and as power in the society became more centralised, the concept of a single, universal God became more popular and desirable.[63]
Weber's essay The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism is his most famous work.[29] It is argued that this work should not be viewed as a detailed study of Protestantism, but rather as an introduction into Weber's later works, especially his studies of interaction between various religious ideas and economic behaviour as part of the rationalisation of the economic system.[64] In The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, Weber put forward the thesis that Calvinist ethic and ideas influenced the development of capitalism.[64] He noted the post-Reformation shift of Europe's economic centre away from Catholic countries such as France, Spain and Italy, and toward Protestant countries such as the Netherlands, England, Scotland and Germany. Weber also noted that societies having more Protestants were those with a more highly developed capitalist economy.[65] Similarly, in societies with different religions, most successful business leaders were Protestant.[64] Weber thus argued that Roman Catholicism impeded the development of the capitalist economy in the West, as did other religions such as Confucianism and Buddhism elsewhere in the world.[64]
The development of the concept of the calling quickly gave to the modern entrepreneur a fabulously clear conscience – and also industrious workers; he gave to his employees as the wages of their ascetic devotion to the calling and of co-operation in his ruthless exploitation of them through capitalism the prospect of eternal salvation.—Max Weber[54]
Christian religious devotion had historically been accompanied by rejection of mundane affairs, including economic pursuit.[66] Weber showed that certain types of Protestantism – notably Calvinism – were supportive of rational pursuit of economic gain and worldly activities dedicated to it, seeing them as endowed with moral and spiritual significance.[53] Weber argued that there were many reasons to look for the origins of modern capitalism in the religious ideas of the Reformation.[67] In particular, the Protestant ethic (or more specifically, Calvinist ethic) motivated the believers to work hard, be successful in business and reinvest their profits in further development rather than frivolous pleasures.[64] The notion of calling meant that each individual had to take action in order to be saved; just being a member of the Church was not enough.[54] Predestination also reduced antagonising over economic inequality and further, it meant that a material wealth could be taken as a sign of salvation in the afterlife.[64][68] The believers thus justified pursuit of profit with religion, as instead of being fuelled by morally suspect greed or ambition, their actions were motivated by a highly moral and respected philosophy.[64] This Weber called the "spirit of capitalism": it was the Protestant religious ideology that was behind – and inevitably lead to – the capitalist economic system.[64] This theory is often viewed as a reversal of Marx's thesis that the economic "base" of society determines all other aspects of it.[53]
Weber abandoned research into Protestantism because his colleague Ernst Troeltsch, a professional theologian, had begun work on the book The Social Teachings of the Christian Churches and Sects. Another reason for Weber's decision was that Troeltsch's work already achieved what he desired in that area: laying the groundwork for a comparative analysis of religion and society.[69]
The phrase "work ethic" used in modern commentary is a derivative of the "Protestant ethic" discussed by Weber. It was adopted when the idea of the Protestant ethic was generalised to apply to the Japanese people, Jews and other non-Christians and thus lost its religious connotations.[70]
The Religion of China: Confucianism and Taoism was Weber's second major work on the sociology of religion. Weber focused on those aspects of Chinese society that were different from those of Western Europe, especially those aspects which contrasted with Puritanism. His work also questioned why capitalism did not develop in China.[71] He focused on the issues of Chinese urban development, Chinese patrimonialism and officialdom and Chinese religion and philosophy (primarily, Confucianism and Taoism), as the areas in which Chinese development differed most distinctively from the European route.[71]
According to Weber, Confucianism and Puritanism are mutually exclusive types of rational thought, each attempting to prescribe a way of life based on religious dogma.[72] Notably, they both valued self control and restraint and did not oppose accumulation of wealth.[72] However, to both those qualities were just means to the final goal and here they were divided by a key difference.[68] Confucianism's goal was "a cultured status position", while Puritanism's goal was to create individuals who are "tools of God".[72] The intensity of belief and enthusiasm for action were rare in Confucianism, but common in Protestantism.[72] Actively working for wealth was unbecoming a proper Confucian.[68] Therefore, Weber states that it was this difference in social attitudes and mentality, shaped by the respective, dominant religions, that contributed to the development of capitalism in the West and the absence of it in China.[72]
The Religion of India: The Sociology of Hinduism and Buddhism was Weber's third major work on the sociology of religion. In this work he deals with the structure of Indian society, with the orthodox doctrines of Hinduism and the heterodox doctrines of Buddhism, with modifications brought by the influence of popular religiosity and finally with the impact of religious beliefs on the secular ethic of Indian society.[73] Like Confucianism in China, for Weber, Hinduism in India was a barrier for capitalism.[68] The Indian caste system made it very difficult for individuals to advance in the society beyond their caste.[68] Activity, including economic activity, was seen as unimportant in the context of the advancement of the soul.[68]
Weber ended his research of society and religion in India by bringing in insights from his previous work on China to discuss similarities of the Asian belief systems.[74] He notes that the beliefs saw the meaning of life as otherworldly mystical experience.[74] The social world is fundamentally divided between the educated elite, following the guidance of a prophet or wise man and the uneducated masses whose beliefs are centered on magic.[74] In Asia, there was no Messianic prophecy to give plan and meaning to the everyday life of educated and uneducated alike.[74] Weber juxtaposed such Messianic prophecies (also called ethical prophecies), notably from the Near East region to the exemplary prophecies found on the Asiatic mainland, focused more on reaching to the educated elites and enlightening them on the proper ways to live one's life, usually with little emphasis on hard work and the material world.[74][75] It was those differences that prevented the countries of the Occident from following the paths of the earlier Chinese and Indian civilizations. His next work, Ancient Judaism was an attempt to prove this theory.[74]
In Ancient Judaism, his fourth major work on the sociology of religion, Weber attempted to explain the factors which resulted in the early differences between Oriental and Occidental religiosity.[76] He contrasted the innerworldly asceticism developed by Western Christianity with mystical contemplation of the kind developed in India.[76] Weber noted that some aspects of Christianity sought to conquer and change the world, rather than withdraw from its imperfections.[76] This fundamental characteristic of Christianity (when compared to Far Eastern religions) stems originally from ancient Jewish prophecy.[77]
Weber noted that Judaism not only fathered Christianity and Islam, but was crucial to the rise of the modern Occidental state; Judaism's influence was as important as Hellenistic and Roman cultures.
Weber's premature death in 1920 prevented him from following his planned analysis of Psalms, the Book of Job, Talmudic Jewry, early Christianity and Islam.
In political sociology, one of Weber's most significant contributions is his Politics as a Vocation essay. Therein, Weber unveils the definition of the state as that entity which possesses a delegatable monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force.[78] Weber wrote that politics is the sharing of state's power between various groups, and political leaders are those who wield this power.[78] A politician must not be a man of the "true Christian ethic", understood by Weber as being the ethic of the Sermon on the Mount, that is to say, the injunction to turn the other cheek.[79] An adherent of such an ethic ought rather to be understood to be a saint, for it is only saints, according to Weber, that can appropriately follow it.[79] The political realm is no realm for saints; a politician ought to marry the ethic of ultimate ends and the ethic of responsibility and must possess both a passion for his vocation and the capacity to distance himself from the subject of his exertions (the governed).[79]
Weber distinguished three ideal types of political leadership (alternatively referred to as three types of domination, legitimisation or authority):
In his view, every historical relation between rulers and ruled contained such elements and they can be analysed on the basis of this tripartite distinction.[81] He notes that the instability of charismatic authority forces it to "routinise" into a more structured form of authority.[56] In a pure type of traditional rule, sufficient resistance to a ruler can lead to a "traditional revolution". The move towards a rational-legal structure of authority, utilising a bureaucratic structure, is inevitable in the end.[82] Thus this theory can be sometimes viewed as part of the social evolutionism theory. This ties to his broader concept of rationalisation by suggesting the inevitability of a move in this direction.[56]
Bureaucratic administration means fundamentally domination through knowledge.—Max Weber[83]
Weber described many ideal types of public administration and government in his masterpiece Economy and Society (1922). His critical study of the bureaucratisation of society became one of the most enduring parts of his work.[56][83] It was Weber who began the studies of bureaucracy and whose works led to the popularisation of this term.[84] Many aspects of modern public administration go back to him and a classic, hierarchically organised civil service of the Continental type is called "Weberian civil service".[85] As the most efficient and rational way of organising, bureaucratisation for Weber was the key part of the rational-legal authority and furthermore, he saw it as the key process in the ongoing rationalisation of the Western society.[56][83]
Weber listed several preconditions for the emergence of the bureaucracy:[86] The growth in space and population being administered, the growth in complexity of the administrative tasks being carried out and the existence of a monetary economy – these resulted in a need for a more efficient administrative system.[86] Development of communication and transportation technologies made more efficient administration possible (and popularly requested) and democratisation and rationalisation of culture resulted in demands that the new system treat everybody equally.[86]
Weber's ideal bureaucracy is characterised by hierarchical organisation, by delineated lines of authority in a fixed area of activity, by action taken (and recorded) on the basis of written rules, by bureaucratic officials needing expert training, by rules being implemented neutrally and by career advancement depending on technical qualifications judged by organisations, not by individuals.[83][86]
The decisive reason for the advance of the bureaucratic organisation has always been its purely technical superiority over any other form of organisation.—Max Weber[85]
While recognising bureaucracy as the most efficient form of organisation and even indispensable for the modern state, Weber also saw it as a threat to individual freedoms and the ongoing bureaucratisation as leading to a "polar night of icy darkness", in which increasing rationalisation of human life traps individuals in the aforementioned "iron cage" of bureaucratic, rule-based, rational control.[83][87] In order to counteract bureaucrats, the system needs entrepreneurs and politicians.[83]
Weber also formulated a three-component theory of stratification, with Social class, Social status and Political party as conceptually distinct elements.[88]
All three dimensions have consequences for what Weber called "life chances" (opportunities to improve one's life).[88]
As part of his overarching effort to understand the unique development of the Western world, Weber produced a detailed general study of the city as the characteristic locus of the social and economic relations, political arrangements, and ideas that eventually came to define the West. This resulted in a monograph titled The City, which was probably compiled from research conducted in 1911-1913, and which was published posthumously in 1921. In 1924 it was incorporated into the second part of his Economy and Society, as chapter XVI, "The City (Non-legitimate Domination)".
According to Weber, the city as a politically autonomous organization of people living in close proximity, employed in a variety of specialized trades, and physically separated from the surrounding countryside, only fully developed in the West and to a great extent shaped its cultural evolution:
The origin of a rational and inner-worldly ethic is associated in the Occident with the appearance of thinkers and prophets [...] who developed in a social context which was alien to the Asiatic cultures. This context consisted of the political problems engendered by the bourgeois status-group of the city, without which neither Judaism, nor Christianity, nor the development of Hellenistic thinking are conceivable.— Max Weber [89]
Weber argued that Judaism, early Christianity, theology, and later the political party and modern science, were only possible in the urban context that reached a full development the West alone.[90] He also saw in the history of medieval European cities the rise of a unique form of "non-legitimate domination" that successfully challenged the existing forms of legitimate domination (traditional, charismatic, and rational-legal) that had prevailed until then in the Medieval world.[91] This new domination was based on the great economic and military power wielded by the organized community of city-dwellers ("citizens").
Weber regarded himself primarily as a "political economist,"[92][93][94] and all of his professorial appointments were in economics, though today his contributions in that field are largely overshadowed by his role as a founder of modern sociology. As an economist, Weber belonged to the "youngest" German historical school of economics.[95] The great differences between that school's interests and methods on the one hand and those of the neoclassical school (from which modern mainstream economics largely derives) on the other, explain why Weber's influence on economics today is hard to discern.[96]
Though his research interests were always in line with those of the German historicists, with a strong emphasis on interpreting economic history, Weber's defence of "methodological individualism" in the social sciences represented an important break with that school and an embracing of many of the arguments that had been made against the historicists by Carl Menger, the founder of the Austrian School of economics, in the context of the academic Methodenstreit ("debate over methods") of the late 19th century.[40] The phrase "methodological individualism," which has come into common usage in modern debates about the connection between microeconomics and macroeconomics, was coined by the Austrian-American economist Joseph Schumpeter in 1908 as a way of referring to the views of Weber.[40] According to Weber's theses, social research cannot be fully inductive or descriptive, because understanding some phenomenon implies that the researcher must go beyond mere description and interpret it; interpretation requires classification according to abstract "ideal (pure) types".[95] This, together with his antipositivistic argumentation (see Verstehen), can be taken as a methodological justification for the model of the "rational economic man" (homo economicus), which is at the heart of modern mainstream economics.[40][95]
Unlike other historicists, Weber also accepted the marginal theory of value (also called "marginalism") and taught it to his students.[39][97] In 1908, Weber published an article in which he drew a sharp methodological distinction between psychology and economics and attacked the claims that the marginal theory of value in economics reflected the form of the psychological response to stimuli as described by the Weber-Fechner law. Max Weber's article has been cited as a definitive refutation of the dependence of the economic theory of value on the laws of psychophysics by Lionel Robbins, George Stigler,[98] and Friedrich Hayek, though the broader issue of the relation between economics and psychology has come back into the academic debate with the development of "behavioral economics."[99]
Weber's best known work in economics concerned the preconditions for capitalist development, particularly the relations between religion and capitalism, which he explored in The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism as well as in his other works on the sociology of religion.[95] He argued that bureaucratic political and economic systems emerging in the Middle Ages were essential in the rise of modern capitalism (including rational book-keeping and organization of formally free labour), while they were a hindrance in the case of ancient capitalism, which had a different social and political structure based on conquest, slavery, and the coastal city-state.[100] Other contributions include his early work on the economic history of Roman agrarian society (1891) and on the labour relations in Eastern Germany (1892), his analysis of the history of commercial partnerships in the Middle Ages (1889), his critique of Marxism, the discussion of the roles of idealism and materialism in the history of capitalism in his Economy and Society (1922) and his General Economic History (1923), a notable example of the kind of empirical work associated with the German Historical School.[95]
Though today read primarily by sociologists and social philosophers, Weber's work did have a significant influence on Frank Knight, one of the founders of the neoclassical Chicago school of economics, who translated Weber's General Economic History into English in 1927.[101] Knight also wrote in 1956 that Max Weber was the only economist who dealt with the problem of understanding the emergence of modern capitalism "from the angle which alone can yield an answer to such questions, that is, the angle of comparative history in the broad sense."[97]
Weber, like his colleague Werner Sombart, regarded economic calculation and especially the double-entry bookkeeping method of business accounting, as one of the most important forms of rationalisation associated the development of modern capitalism.[102] Weber's preoccupation with the importance of economic calculation led him to develop a critique of socialism as a system that lacked a mechanism for allocating resources efficiently in order to satisfy human needs.[103] Socialist intellectuals like Otto Neurath had realised that in a completely socialised economy, prices would not exist and central planners would have to resort to in-kind (rather than monetary) economic calculation.[103][104] According to Weber, this type of coordination would be inefficient, especially because it would be incapable of solving the problem of imputation (i.e. of accurately determining the relative values of capital goods).[103][104] Weber wrote that, under full socialism,
In order to make possible a rational utilisation of the means of production, a system of in-kind accounting would have to determine "value" – indicators of some kind for the individual capital goods which could take over the role of the "prices" used in book valuation in modern business accounting. But it is not at all clear how such indicators could be established and in particular, verified; whether, for instance, they should vary from one production unit to the next (on the basis of economic location), or whether they should be uniform for the entire economy, on the basis of "social utility," that is, of (present and future) consumption requirements [...] Nothing is gained by assuming that, if only the problem of a non-monetary economy were seriously enough attacked, a suitable accounting method would be discovered or invented. The problem is fundamental to any kind of complete socialisation. We cannot speak of a rational "planned economy" so long as in this decisive respect we have no instrument for elaborating a rational "plan."—Max Weber[105]
This argument against socialism was made independently, at about the same time, by Ludwig von Mises.[103][106] Weber himself had a significant influence on Mises, whom he had befriended when they were both at the University of Vienna in the spring of 1918,[107] and, through Mises, on several other economists associated with the Austrian School in the 20th century.[108] Friedrich Hayek in particular elaborated the arguments of Weber and Mises about economic calculation into a central part of free market economics's intellectual assault on socialism, as well as into a model for the spontaneous coordination of "dispersed knowledge" in markets.[109][110][111]
The prestige of Max Weber among European social scientists would be difficult to over-estimate. He is widely considered the greatest of German sociologists and... has become a leading influence in European and American thought.— Hans Heinrich Gerth and Charles Wright Mills, From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology, 1991[3]
Weber's most influential work was on economic sociology, political sociology, and the sociology of religion. Along with Karl Marx and Émile Durkheim,[93] he is commonly regarded as one of the founders of modern sociology. But whereas Durkheim, following Comte, worked in the positivist tradition, Weber was instrumental in developing an antipositivist, hermeneutic, tradition in the social sciences.[112] In this regard he belongs to a similar tradition as his German colleagues Werner Sombart, Georg Simmel, and Wilhelm Dilthey, who stressed the differences between the methodologies appropriate to the social and the natural sciences.[112]
Weber presented sociology as the science of human social action; action which he separated into traditional, affectional, value-rational and instrumental.[113][114]
[Sociology is] the science whose object is to interpret the meaning of social action and thereby give a causal explanation of the way in which the action proceeds and the effects which it produces. By "action" in this definition is meant the human behaviour when and to the extent that the agent or agents see it as subjectively meaningful [...] the meaning to which we refer may be either (a) the meaning actually intended either by an individual agent on a particular historical occasion or by a number of agents on an approximate average in a given set of cases, or (b) the meaning attributed to the agent or agents, as types, in a pure type constructed in the abstract. In neither case is the "meaning" to be thought of as somehow objectively "correct" or "true" by some metaphysical criterion. This is the difference between the empirical sciences of action, such as sociology and history and any kind of a priori discipline, such as jurisprudence, logic, ethics, or aesthetics whose aim is to extract from their subject-matter "correct" or "valid" meaning.—Max Weber, The Nature of Social Action, 1922, [115]
In his own time, however, Weber was viewed primarily as a historian and an economist.[93][94] The breadth of Weber's topical interests is apparent in the depth of his social theory:
The affinity between capitalism and Protestantism, the religious origins of the Western world, the force of charisma in religion as well as in politics, the all-embracing process of rationalisation and the bureaucratic price of progress, the role of legitimacy and of violence as the offspring of leadership, the 'disenchantment' of the modern world together with the never-ending power of religion, the antagonistic relation between intellectualism and eroticism: all these are key concepts which attest to the enduring fascination of Weber's thinking.— Joachim Radkau, Max Weber: A Biography, 2005[116]
Many of Weber's works famous today were collected, revised and published posthumously. Significant interpretations of his writings were produced by such sociological luminaries as Talcott Parsons and C. Wright Mills. Parsons in particular imparted to Weber's works a functionalist, teleological perspective; this personal interpretation has been criticised for a latent conservatism.[117]
Weber has influenced many later social theorists, such as Theodor Adorno, Max Horkheimer, György Lukács and Jürgen Habermas.[2] Different elements of his thought were emphasized by Carl Schmitt, Joseph Schumpeter, Leo Strauss, Hans Morgenthau, and Raymond Aron.[2] According to Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises, who had met Weber during his time at the University of Vienna,
The early death of this genius was a great disaster for Germany. Had Weber lived longer, the German people of today would be able to look to this example of an "Aryan" who would not be broken by National Socialism.—Ludwig von Mises, 1940[118]
Weber's friend, the psychiatrist and existentialist philosopher Karl Jaspers, described him "the greatest German of our era" and his untimely death felt to Jaspers "as if the German world had lost its heart."[119]
Weber's explanations are highly specific to the historical periods he analysed.[120] This makes it more difficult to generalise from his analysis and modify his theories for other circumstances.[120]
Many scholars, however, have disagreed with specific claims Weber makes in his historical analysis. For example, the economist Joseph Schumpeter argued that capitalism did not begin with the Industrial Revolution but in 14th century Italy.[121] In Milan, Venice and Florence the small city-state governments led to the development of the earliest forms of capitalism.[122] In the 16th century Antwerp was a commercial centre of Europe. Also, the predominantly Calvinist country of Scotland did not enjoy the same economic growth as the Netherlands, England and New England. It has been pointed out that the Netherlands, which had a Calvinist majority, industrialised much later in the 19th century than predominantly Catholic Belgium, which was one of the centres of the Industrial Revolution on the European mainland.[123] Emil Kauder expanded Schumpeter's argument by arguing the hypothesis that Calvinism hurt the development of capitalism by leading to the development of the labour theory of value.[124]
a ^ Weber wrote his books in German. Original titles printed after his death (1920) are most likely compilations of his unfinished works (of the 'Collected Essays...' form). Many translations are made of parts or sections of various German originals and the names of the translations often do not reveal what part of German work they contain. Weber's work is generally quoted according to the critical Gesamtausgabe (collected works edition), which is published by Mohr Siebeck in Tübingen. For an extensive list of Max Weber's works see list of Max Weber works.
| Find more about Max Weber on Wikipedia's sister projects: | |
| Definitions and translations from Wiktionary |
|
| Images and media from Commons |
|
| Learning resources from Wikiversity |
|
| News stories from Wikinews |
|
| Quotations from Wikiquote |
|
| Source texts from Wikisource |
|
| Textbooks from Wikibooks |
|
Texts of his works:
Analysis of his works:
This entry is from Wikipedia, the leading user-contributed encyclopedia. It may not have been reviewed by professional editors (see full disclaimer)
| bureaucracy (Science) | |
| Page Smith (literature) | |
| social action (in archaeology) |
| What was Max Weber\'s mother name? Read answer... | |
| What describes the work of max weber? Read answer... | |
| When was Max Weber born? Read answer... |
| Concept of order from Max Weber? | |
| Max weber and the bureacracy? | |
| What are the basic of max weber legitimacy? |
Copyrights:
![]() | Britannica Concise Encyclopedia. Britannica Concise Encyclopedia. © 1994-2012 Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc. All rights reserved. Read more | |
![]() |
![]() | Gale Encyclopedia of Biography. Gale Encyclopedia of Biography. © 2006 by The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved. Read more |
![]() | Oxford Dictionary of Politics. The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics. Copyright © 1996, 2003 by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. Read more | |
![]() | Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy. The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy. Copyright © 1994, 1996, 2005 by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. Read more | |
![]() |
![]() | Columbia Encyclopedia. The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition Copyright © 2012, Columbia University Press. Licensed from Columbia University Press. All rights reserved. www.cc.columbia.edu/cu/cup/. Read more |
![]() |
![]() | West's Encyclopedia of American Law. West's Encyclopedia of American Law. Copyright © 1998 by The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved. Read more |
![]() |
![]() | Quotes By. Copyright © 2008 QuotationsBook.com. All rights reserved. Read more |
![]() |
![]() | Dictionary of Cultural Literacy: Science. The New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition Edited by E.D. Hirsch, Jr., Joseph F. Kett, and James Trefil. Copyright © 2002 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin. All rights reserved. Read more |
![]() |
![]() | Wikipedia on Answers.com. This article is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article Max Weber. Read more |
Mentioned in