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.[1] Notably, they both valued self-control and restraint and did not oppose accumulation of wealth.[1] However, to both those qualities were just means to the final goal and here they were divided by a key difference.[2] Confucianism's goal was "a cultured status position", while Puritanism's goal was to create individuals who are "tools of God".[1] The intensity of belief and enthusiasm for action were rare in Confucianism, but common in Protestantism.[1] Actively working for wealth was unbecoming a proper Confucian.[2] 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.[1]
The Religion of India edit
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.[3] In Weber's view, Hinduism in India, like Confucianism in China, was a barrier for capitalism.[2] The Indian caste system made it very difficult for individuals to advance in the society beyond their caste.[2] Activity, including economic activity, was seen as unimportant in the context of the advancement of the soul.[2]
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.[4] He notes that the beliefs saw the meaning of life as otherworldly mystical experience.[4] 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.[4] In Asia, there was no Messianic prophecy to give plan and meaning to the everyday life of educated and uneducated alike.[4] Weber juxtaposed such Messianic prophecies (aka 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.[4][5] It was those differences that prevented the countries of the Occident from following the paths of the earlier Chinese and Indian civilisations. His next work, Ancient Judaism was an attempt to prove this theory.[4]
Ancient Judaism edit
In Ancient Judaism, his fourth major work on the sociology of religion, Weber attempted to explain the factors that resulted in the early differences between Oriental and Occidental religiosity.[6] He contrasted the innerworldly asceticism developed by Western Christianity with mystical contemplation of the kind developed in India.[6] Weber noted that some aspects of Christianity sought to conquer and change the world, rather than withdraw from its imperfections.[6] This fundamental characteristic of Christianity (when compared to Far Eastern religions) stems originally from ancient Jewish prophecy.[7]
Weber claimed 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 death in 1920 prevented him from following his planned analysis of Psalms, the Book of Job, Talmudic Jewry, early Christianity and Islam.
Theodicy of fortune and misfortune edit
The 'theodicy of fortune and misfortune' within sociology is the theory, as Weber suggested, of how "members of different social classes adopt different belief systems, or theodices, to explain their social situation."[8]
The concept of theodicy was expanded mainly with the thought of Weber and his addition of ethical considerations to the subject of religion. There is an ethical part of religion, that includes:[9]
- Soteriology: how people understand themselves to be capable of a correct relationship with supernatural powers; and
- Theodicy: how to explain evil – or why bad things seem to happen to those who seem to be good people.
There is a separation of different theodicies with regard to class: "theodicies of misfortune tend to the belief that wealth and other manifestations of privilege are indications or signs of evil. ... In contrast, theodicies of fortune emphasise the notion that privileges are a blessing and are deserved."[9]
Weber also distinguishes that, "the affluent embrace good fortune theodicies, which emphasise that prosperity is a blessing of God [while] theodices of misfortune emphasise that affluence is a sign of evil and that suffering in this world will be rewarded in the next."[8] Therefore, these two distinctions can be applied not only to class structure within society but denomination and racial segregation within religion.
Weber defines the importance of societal class within religion by examining the difference between the two theodicies and to what class structures they apply. The concept of "work ethic" is attached to the theodicy of fortune; thus, because of the Protestant "work ethic", there was a contribution of higher class outcomes and more education among Protestants.[10] Those without the work ethic clung to the theodicy of misfortune, believing wealth and happiness were granted in the afterlife. Another example of how this belief of religious theodicy influences class, is that those of lower status, the poor, cling to deep religiousness and faith as a way to comfort themselves and provide hope for a more prosperous future, while those of higher status cling to the sacraments or actions that prove their right of possessing greater wealth.[8]
These two theodicies manifest in socioeconomic stratification within religiously similar groups. For example, U.S. American "mainline" Protestant churches with upper class congregations generally "promote order, stability, and conservatism, and in so doing proved to be a powerful source of legitimation of the status quo and of existing disparities in the distribution of wealth and power," because much of the wealth of the church comes from the congregation.[11] In contrast, Pentecostal churches find their roots in among working class persons with a theodicy of misfortune. Instead of supporting status quo, these churches may advocate "change intended to advance the cause of justice and fairness".[11] The theodicies of these churches, which are enmeshed in their origins, practices, and preaching, thus reinforce segregation by social class.
The state, politics, and government edit
In political sociology, one of Weber's most influential contributions is his essay "Politik als Beruf" ("Politics as a Vocation"), in which he defines "the state" as an entity that possesses a monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force.[12][13][14]
Accordingly, Weber proposed that politics is the sharing of state power between various groups, whereas political leaders are those who wield this power.[13] As such, a politician, in Weber's view, must not be a man of the "true Christian ethic" (i.e. the ethic of the Sermon on the Mount), in that one cannot have the injunction to 'turn the other cheek'.[15] An adherent of such an ethic ought rather to be understood as a saint, for it is only saints, according to Weber, that can appropriately follow it.[15] The political realm is no realm for saints; a politician ought to marry the verantwortungsethik and the gesinnungsethik ("ethic of attitude" and the "ethic of responsibility")[16] and must possess both a passion for his vocation and the capacity to distance himself from the subject of his exertions (the governed).[15]
Weber distinguished three ideal types of political leadership (aka three types of domination, legitimisation or authority):[17][18]
- Charismatic authority (familial and religious);
- Traditional authority (patriarchs, patrimonialism, feudalism); and
- Legal authority (modern law and state, bureaucracy).[19]
In his view, every historical relation between rulers and ruled contained such elements, which can be analysed on the basis of this tripartite distinction.[20] Weber notes that the instability of charismatic authority forces it to "routinise" into a more structured form of authority.[21] 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, using a bureaucratic structure, is inevitable in the end.[22] 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.[21]
- Bureaucratic administration means fundamentally domination through knowledge.|Max Weber[23]
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.[21][23] It was Weber who began the studies of bureaucracy and whose works led to the popularisation of this term.[24] 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".[25] 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.[21][23]
Weber listed several preconditions for the emergence of the bureaucracy, which resulted in a need for a more efficient administrative system, including:[26]
- 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.[26]
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.[26]
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.[23][26]
- 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[25]
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.[23][27] To counteract bureaucrats, the system needs entrepreneurs and politicians.[23]
Social stratification edit
Weber also formulated a three-component theory of stratification, with social class, social status and political party as conceptually distinct elements.[28] The three-component theory of stratification is in contrast to Karl Marx simpler theory of social class that ties all social stratification to what people own. In Weber's theory, issues of honour and prestige are important. This distinction is most clearly described in Weber's essay Classes, Staende, Parties, which was first published in his book Economy and Society.[29] The three components of Weber's theory are:
- Social class: based on economically determined relationship to the market (owner, renter, employee, etc.)
- Status (German: Stand): based on non-economic qualities like honour, prestige and religion
- Party: affiliations in the political domain
All three dimensions have consequences for what Weber called "life chances" (opportunities to improve one's life).[28] Weber scholars maintain a sharp distinction between the terms status and class, even though, in casual use, people tend to use them interchangeably.[30]
Study of the city edit
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, The City, which he probably compiled from research conducted in 1911–1913. It was published posthumously in 1921, and, in 1924, was incorporated into the second part of his Economy and Society, as the sixteenth chapter, "The City (Non-legitimate Domination)".
According to Weber, the city as a politically autonomous organisation of people living in close proximity, employed in a variety of specialised trades, and physically separated from the surrounding countryside, only fully developed in the West and to a great extent shaped its cultural evolution:[31]
- The origin of a rational and inner-worldly ethic is associated in the Occident with the appearance of thinkers and prophets ... whodeveloped in a social context that 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.|author=|title=|source=
- ^ a b c d e Cite error: The named reference
Bendix135was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ a b c d e Cite error: The named reference
Ritzer2009-37-38was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ Cite error: The named reference
Bendix142was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ a b c d e f Cite error: The named reference
Bendix199was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ Cite error: The named reference
Bendix90was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ a b c Cite error: The named reference
Bendix200was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ Cite error: The named reference
Bendix204was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ a b c Plye, Davidson, and James Ralph. "Stratification". Encyclopedia of Religion and Society. Archived from the original on 29 April 2013. Retrieved 27 May 2012.
- ^ a b Christiano, Swatos; Kivisto, Kevin; William, Peter (2008). Sociology of Religion. New York: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers Inc. p. 7. ISBN 978-0-7425-6111-3.
- ^ Christiano, Swatos; Kivisto, Kevin; William, Peter (2008). Sociology of Religion. New York: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers Inc. p. 142. ISBN 978-0-7425-6111-3.
- ^ a b Christiano, Swatos; Kivisto, Kevin; William, Peter (2008). Sociology of Religion. New York: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers Inc. p. 137. ISBN 978-0-7425-6111-3.
- ^ Weber, Max. 2015 [1919]. "Politics as Vocation". pp. 129–98 in Weber's Rationalism and Modern Society, edited and translated by Tony Waters and Dagmar Waters.
- ^ a b Cite error: The named reference
E-PoVwas invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ Phelps, Martha Lizabeth (December 2014). "Doppelgangers of the State: Private Security and Transferable Legitimacy". Politics & Policy. 42 (6): 824–49. doi:10.1111/polp.12100.
- ^ a b c Cite error: The named reference
PaVwas invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ Weber, Marx. 2004 [1919]. "'Gesinnungsethik' versus 'Verantwortungsethik' Archived 23 September 2020 at the Wayback Machine". Politik als Beruf [Politk as a Vocation]. – via textlog.
- ^ Cite error: The named reference
Ibrahim, 2012was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ Weber, Max. 2015 [1919]. "Politics as Vocation". pp. 135–36 in Weber's Rationalism and Modern Society, edited and translated by Tony Waters and Dagmar Waters. New York: Palgrave Macmillan
- ^ Cite error: The named reference
WolfJMwas invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ Cite error: The named reference
Bendix296was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ a b c d Cite error: The named reference
Ritzer2009-38-42was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ Cite error: The named reference
Bendix303was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ a b c d e f Cite error: The named reference
Bureaucraticwas invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ Cite error: The named reference
BuSachwas invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ a b Cite error: The named reference
Hooghe2001was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ a b c d Cite error: The named reference
AllanAllan2005-172-176was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ Cite error: The named reference
GRitzerwas invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ a b Cite error: The named reference
Bendix85was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ Max Weber, "The Distribution of Power Within the Gemeinschaft: Classes, Staende, Parties" pp. 59–72 in Weber's Rationalism and Modern Society, edited and translated by Tony Waters and Dagmar Waters.
- ^ Waters, Tony, and Dagmar Waters. 2016."Are the terms 'socio-economic status' and 'class status' a warped form of reasoning for Max Weber? Archived 28 October 2021 at the Wayback Machine" Palgrave Communications 2(16002).
- ^ Quoted in Bendix, Reinhard (1977). Max Weber: An Intellectual Portrait. University of California Press. p. 79. ISBN 978-0-520-03194-4.