Home > Uncategorized > Overview on Weber

Overview on Weber

Weber is the second big name in the sociological traditions. He was a racist against the chinese especially. Wants to create an encyclopedia of perfectable concepts to be applied to any social situation.

Weber is pronounced Vaybir

Weber Biography

Long decades of peace for Germany, from 1870 to 1914, coupled with general prosperity, had entirely changed the conditions of German scholarship. The petty bourgeois professor, harried by money matters, had been replaced by an upper-class academician with a large home and a maid. This change facilitated the establishment of an intellectual salon.
It is from this position that Weber saw the residences of American university professors.
The intellectual traditions (hempel and hongol on weber p24)

In the early ‘nineties, Weber argued against historical materialism by playing up the inexhaustible complexity of causal pluralism. For example, he felt, for many historical reasons, that the wages of farm hands did not follow any economic law, least of all an ‘iron one.’ In his 1894 lecture at Freiburg, he held that national and ethnic diflferences in the competitive struggle for existence were more causally important than economic and class situations. Later his political and intellectual relations with the body of Marxist knowledge were to be quite different and much more

For Weber, the universal franchise, the struggle for votes, and the freedom of organization had no value unless they resulted in powerful political leaders willing to assume responsibility rather than evade it and cover up their deeds behind court cliques and imperial bureaucrats who happened to have the Kaiser’s favor. *38)

Weber, however, used this method as a ‘heuristic principle.’ As a view of world history, Marxism seemed to him an untenable monocausal theory and thus prejudicial to an adequate reconstruction of social and historical connections. He felt that Marx as an economist had made the same mistake that, during Weber’s days, anthropology was making: raising a segmental perspective to paramount importance and reducing the multiplicity of causal factors to a single-factor theorem.47

Weber ideal types lie on a scale, one of which is that of rationality and irrationality. With rational man, traditional, and instinctual. (57)

For Weber, historical and social uniqueness results from specific combinations of general factors, which when isolated
are quantifiable. Thus the ‘same’ elements may be seen in a series of other unique combinations.. . Of course, in the last analysis, all qualitative contrasts in reality can somehow be comprehended as purely quantitative differences made up of combinations of various single factors.’ ^* He does not say that quality can be ‘reduced’ to quantity; indeed,
as a nominalist, he is quite sensitive to the qualitative uniqueness of cultural reality and to the qualitative differences resulting from quantitative changes.(59)

Society and Economy

Chapter 1: Methods

Methods of empirical sociology.

Difference between subjectively intended and objectively valid meanings.

Sociology is the interpretive action of social understanding searching for causal explanations of its processes and outcome. (4)

An individual acts (action) in so far as he attaches meaning to his behavior. An individual behavior to which no meaning is attached is not acting in a true sense. When an individual breathes, he does not act. Subjective meaning may be overt or covert, known to the actor or not known. Action is social if the behavior takes account of other individuals and is oriented to take others into account.

Meaning: the attributable interpretation behind an action by an individual or aggregate meanings of the group. The ideal type of a meaning attributable to a situation of action. “In no case does it refer to an objective meaning that is true in any sense” There are no true or valid meanings in sociology or history.

It is difficult to distinguish between active meaningful behavior and simply automatic or reactive behavior.

Recapturing experience is a precondition to understanding behavior but not an absolute condition. It is easier to understand anger if you have experienced it. Any process ahs understandable and nonunderstandable aspects to it for the observer.

Interpretation of meaning strives for accuracy. (so sociology strives to understand the motivations of social action by the actors). There are two types of understanding, empathetic, and rational in which we account for all the parts of the action. Rational understanding is ideally found in maths.

For purposes of study it is convenient to treat all irrational, affectually determined elements as variations of an ideal type of logical behavior. First determine what is the rational course of action under a certain situation, then look at what happened and explain it. It is only inthis way that we can see the causal significance of irrational actors.

This is as far a rational method goes in sociology, it has no rationalist bias because it is simply a metholodgical device that seeks to provide greater clarity.

We must take account of the processes and phenomena which are devoid of subjective meaning in explaining outcome of action. Things are devoid of meaning if they cannot  be related to a specific purpose. (7) Human mortality for example. It is possible that in the future all action will be traced to noninterpretable underlying functions, and that all human behavior is not active, until then however we must assume agency and meaning and purpose in behavior. (8)

There are two types of understanding , the first is by direct observation so that we can see the person is angry and  explain their behavior by correlation. The other type is by explanatory understanding in which we grasp the meaning an actor gives to an act and the values associated with it which cannot be discerned by simple observation. It is placing the act in an intelligible context of meaning. One can be chopping wood for labour or out of anger or etc…

Meaning can be situated historically, within an aggregate of a group, and by relationto ideal rational types. Even if we see the same outcome, the causes may be quite different. Verification of subjective interpretation by comparison to concrete events is indispensable. Ideally we would like to compare situations which are same in all ways but one, but we cant so we have to make mind experiments. Where the possibility of empirical verification is impossible all hypothesis simply remain so.

Motive is a complex of subjective meaning which gives the actors adequate grounds for acting. This is subjective motive or meaning, there may be other reasons why an actor does what he does. Correct causal interpretation is when we account for both the outcome of events and the meaning attributed to them. If we can’t figure out the meaning, even the most high statistical probability tells us nothing of causality (12). On the other hand even perfect adequacy of meaning is only valid if it has some correspondence to outcomes.

“Statistical uniformities constitute understandable types of action, and thus constitute sociological generalizations, only when they can be regarded as manifestations of the understandable subjective meaning of a course of social action.”

A different method is required to study the not understandable processes and uniformities which still affect social life, like rainfall. But we ust still account for them.

Action is only something one or more individual humans can do. The individual is the basic ontological unit. We can scale the individual to a state but we are always referring to the individual as the starting point. When we do speak of states for example, we must remember that they always boil down to individuals, but also that theyhave meaning with respect to the individual, a state means something. One of the aspects of them doern state is the belief by individuals that orient their action toward it that it should exist.

The treatment of higher entities beyond the individual as functionally purposive is useful but not indispensable (15) secondarily we must always relate back when we use a entity like the state to the individual to look at the subjective understanding of the action of the component individuals. This is different from natural sciences, cells can be observed but their motivation cannot be understood even if we use functional analysis, individuals can be understood.

(17) “How far there is even a hope that the existence of subjective or meaningful orientation could be made experimentally probable, even the specialist today would hardly be in a position to say.”

We can only understand by referring to the human scale, thus studying animal society is difficult without drawing analogies ot what we know of ourselves.

Where history focuses on individual trajectories, sociology makes ideal types of behavior for many situations. Typically means ideal type in sociology, not some law/. Every ideal type is one  (20) realm like economic behavior under rational criteria. The clearer an ideal type is the less real it is. The ideal type is simply a tool which allows us to isolate different meanings.

Social action is any failure to act or passive aquiescnece, or action oriented to past present or expected future behavior of others. It can be toward inanimate objects. All action to other humans is not all social action. If a group are in a rain strom and they all raise umbrellas not social action. They are not directing to others.

(24) There are four types of social action. Instrumentally rational (we expect objects and people to behave in a cetain way and I use that information to attain my own calculated ends) Value rational (behavior based from a moral or ethical determination that the end is good independently of prospects for success) Affectual (emoptionl based on feelings) and Traditional (ingrained habituation). Traditional and affectual are close to the line of meaningful behaviour and may not cross it always if automatic.

(27) social relationship: The totality of actions of a plurality of actors in meaningful content as directed or taking account of the other actors. Meaning is never correct or true, subjectively held. Can be equal, hierarchical, etc.. can be fleeting or long-term.

Three types of action orientation: Usage (probabilityfo its existence is based on practice) it becomes Custom (based on its being longstanding) and self-interest (actiona that is instrumental to certain ends. (usage is simply action wwhich we cannot see to which individual ends it goes to, usage can be called fashion. Custom iunlike law or convention is not subject to  any sanction.

Legitimate orders are those that are cosndiered valid by those subject to that order (31)


Chapter 3: Types of legitimate domination.

The basis of legitimacy:

(212) Domination: The probability that command (specific or all) will be obeyed in a group.

Every form of domination implies a minimum of coluntary compliance. There must be an interest in obedience.

The motives behind obedience define the different types of domination. The staff that the ruler relies on can be bound by custom, affectional ties, material reasons, or by ideal motives.

(213) A relationship based on purely material domination is unsustainable. In addition to those factors of obedience listed above we must also add legitimacy. “the mode of exercising authority” will differ, by type of obedience types of tasks and type of legitimacy.

(214) An authority which rules purely by monopoly over economic matters or strength is not an authority. Only probable obediance is true domination.

It doesn’t matter if people are afraid or not “what is important is the fact that in a given case the particular claim to legitimacy is to a significant  degree and according to its type treated as ‘valid” So if one is tyrannical despot but a valid one he has authority. The symbols drawn on to induce legitimacy are what matter not the actual practices or individual justification for behaviour.

(215) There are three pure types of authority. Rational/legal: legality of rule and rights of ruler. Traditional: resting on custom and tradition. Charismatic: the character of an individual person.

(216) Method: the utility of ideal types is in “promoting systemic analysis”Even if no ideal type exists in reality. This scheme doesn’t exhaust all real options but it provides a guide to place different types of rule in different categories. It is useful because it is unambiguous unlike reality.

Legal authority:

established based on values of rationality. Applies consistent law to all under its purview not arbitrary. therefore even the authority is bounded by “impersonal order” the subordinate obeys the law not the person and only as a member of the group. Offices organized hierarchically with right of appeal. Offices have technical rules. Merit based. The members of the administrative staff are separated from the means of production. Separation of private/public property. Acts recorded in writing. The purest legal authority employs bureaucratic administrative staff. only the supreme chief is a position of dominance, the rest of the administration is an instrument in his hands. Officers chosen based on merit.

Note ( how much is the legal pure type also an ideal normative type for Weber?)

(223) Monocratic bureaucracy can attain highest efficiency. Superior to any other form because it uses and builds technical knowledge and technology and methods. In the long run the highest ranking bureaucrat will be morei mportant than the minister.

(224) Although capitalism and bureaucracy rise from different historical processes, capitalism cannot function without bureaucracy because of its large scale. Only way to escape bureaucracy is by downsizing scale. bureaucracy levels status and society by making access to power contingent on knowledge and performance.

Traditional authority:

(227) In this kind of authority resistance is directed against the master because he is responsible for success and defeat. The master may or may not  have staff. Staff generally family and favourites, but can be slaves it all depends on the master. Ruler can set up and suspend laws. (but Kenneth Pennington shows us it’s not true exactly) Gerontocracy: Master has no staff, rule held by elder group. Patrimonialism/Sultanism, domination develops administration and military as personal instrument. The traditional ruler is bound by tradition. Two sphere the personal boundless one and the traditional bound one. Finally in an Estate traditional authority, there is an autonomous administration.

The economy under traditional rule generally strengthens traditional attitudes, Capitalism at a large scale is impossible under the more primitive traditional system because the limits of economic freedom are set by ruling group. No consistent tax but case by case taxation. Certain types of capitalism can develop in more advanced traditionalism (complex) trading, tax farming, sale of office, lease, provision of supplies for state. But the more developed capitalismrequires legal stability to calculate profits over time.

Charismatic authority:

Charisma is endowed in a person “considered extraordinary and treated as endowed with supernatural, superhuman, or at least specifically exceptional powers or qualities” (242) The role of the charismatic group or followers is crucial here for it is only salient and meaningful in relation to their beliefs. Charisma only becomes an authority when it is followed by believers who think it is their duty to act accroding to the charismatic authority. It doesn’t matter what the authority himself thinks of himself. Every charismatic authority needs a charismatic community. No bureaucracy no rules, just direct personal judgment. The charismatic  authority can imbue followers with charisma as well. When two charismatic authorities clash the resolution is by contest. This type of authority is foreign to all rules. Charisma always brings about a revolutionary force that shifts internal opinions of followers. Unlike revolutionary of reason whih is impersonal, changes context first and then people acclimate to changing context.

(Arab revolution is internal first. Where was the charismatic authority? Or was it external? Can Charisma be collective? Or was this a rational revolution?)

Routinization of charisma is inevitable. Charisma is fleeting lasts for a short period of time. I t has no economic foundation, it is communist in that it doesnt produce anything economically just consumes what  society provides it with as gifts. The charismatic community not the figure undertakes this change because they need to survive.(246). If a new charismatic leader is sought traditionalization ensues. If rules are put into place rationalization occurs. If followers institute elections it can become democratic if they are seen as the source of authority.

(Islamic succession of charismatic authority?)

(259) Fief feudalism is precarious rule because it depends on monarchs personal favour and voluntary loyalty. Monarch prefers bureaucracy and to pay them in money to make them dependent on him. (prebendal feudalism) (264) Maximizing solidarity of interest with chief maximizes the point where legitimacy and status of member and the provision of their economic needs overlap.

(267) Transformation of charisma to democratic direction. Because charisma which is authoritarian is always requisite on recognition by the charismatic group, legitimacy may be transferred by routinization to the group itself. It could become a sham democracy or go back to traditionalism as well.

(271) collegiality and division of powers: Feudal by status groups. Bureaucracy by agencies functional. Functional division of power is good for the economy (283). Less open to personal influence and based on sound objective judgment.

(285) parties are an institution with membership that rests on formally free recruitment. the end ins to secure power for the leaders so economic benefit can be attained by members.

(289) Direct democracy.

(291) both democratic and notable democracy are technically inadequate in administration.

(302)Chapter 4: Status groups and classes:

Unlike Marx Weber divides social groups by class AND  status. Class is determined by the typical probability of: producing goods. gaining a position in life. finding inner satisfaction. basically class is based on economic criteria. It refers to all persons in the same class situation. There are thee classes property, commercial and social.

Property class is the upper class, commercial is middle, and social is worker class. (see 304-305)

*(305) Class conscious organization is easiest against immediate economic enemies, and when a large number of people are in close proximity and in teh same situation. It is technically easy to organize, the goals are easily understood. BEst conscious organization is when the class leadership is organized by intelligentsia.

(305) Status groups on the other hand hold an effective claim to social esteem. It has both negative and positive priviliges. It is defined by the style of life, education, and inheritance or occupation. Interplay with class, nouveu riche are in the upper class but not in the royal status. Each status has social esteem and its own conventions and behaviors. These behaviors are often economically irrational so status introduces irrationality into economic life and works against the free market.

Chapter 9 Political Communities:

(902) Territorial political organization: “a community whose social action is aimed at subordinating to orderly domination by the participants a ‘territory’ and the conduct of the persons within it, through readiness to resort to physical force, including normally force of arms”

A political community is more than an economic group it must possess a value system for ordering matters other than directly economic disposition of goods and sources. So it is a community with territory force for its domination and  social action. (902) ” the individual is expected to face death in the group interest”

Political community’s experience in life give rise to “community memories” which constitutes the ultimate decisive element of “national consciousness”  which is stronger than cultural, ethnic, or linguistic.

Note (ok what about jews in germany are they part of the nation (no). It does explain why post-colonial states don’t collapse. But what if combatants are on opposite side of the war? do they share communal memories?)

(903) political group is not unique in requiring life. Other groups do so as well such as in blood feuds. But the political community is distinguished in its “enduring and manifest existence as a well established power over a manifest existence as a well established power over a considerable territory of land and possibly also sea”

The political power must be the ONLY legitimate one for the community. This can only happen when the  other groupos lose their grip on the individual.

(904-905) Stages in formation of polity. Violent social action is primordial to humans. Kin group hold violence as consensual against enemies, groups, and internal individuals who are traitors. When this adhoc military warrior class becomes permanent a state forms. Warriors resort to religion to mask dominance, when they are permanent they seek to stabilize their rule. They protect the inhabitants from the outside and maintain their privileged position. Then the political community monopolizes use of legitimate violence and this is gradually transformed into an institution for the protection of rights. The community believes in the direct and indirect interests of everyone for the survival of the state. Meanwhile merchants are expanding undermine some of the state structures within the stability they expand and undermine. They provide the legal rules they need for stability. The state then is formed first by warriors and then by merchants.

(910) power, prestige and great powers.

Prestige which is central to states is always a latent cause of any war. Power for the state means power for feudal officers. Prestige of power is glory of power over other communities. Bearers of power prestige are the great powers. (913) The economy is sometimes a cause of war. (915) colonies bring much profit. ground rent can only be attained by violent conquest, and that is why it is worth a lot to the state.

(918) Polity today is the sole agent that can order war material so it creates a war industry. The interests of the powers that be in the state are for this industry to grow. A balance is struck between “imperial capitalism” and capitalism of “pacific orientation”. in general imperial capitalism is more profitable. As imperialist capital grows (public capital) private capital is diminished. best way to get imperial capital is by territorial domination.

(920) olden times everyone benefited from spoils of war. today only the domestic creditor class benefits from war and the rest only tangentially and indirectly profit. Those entitles to tribute belong to capitalist class. labour is uninterested in colonies so they are pacifist.

(922) The nation:

Emotional influence of nation comes no from economic imperative but from prestige. It is a concept that belongs to the sphere of values. It has no material basis. Nation is a personally and subjectively held concept. National sentiment is different by nation. nationalism do not function in similar ways. those who wield power invoke the state, intellectuals invoke the nation (926).

(926) distribution of power in a political community.

Chapter 10 Domination and legitimacy:

Examples of chapter 3 with historical references on how differest situations become others.

(952) Dominant minority can coordinate to trump dissent by majority, small group benefits from rule, and they have a coterie of followers. highly privileged groups attempt to justify by referring to superior blood.

Chapter 11 Democracy:

Tension between bureaucracy and democracy. Bureaucracy is so efficient it eventually displaces all other forms of organizing society. It is absolutely efficient and eliminate charisma. The officials of a bureaucracy constitute a status group.

(963) money is a prerequisite for bureaucracy because bureaucrats need salaries, need steady revenue. Development of the state is concomittant to evelopment of bureaucracy.

926 “In general we understand by power the chance of a man or a number of men to realize their own will in a social action even against the resistance of others who are participating in the action.”

(971) administrative unity lends strength to state coherence and unity.

(980) concentration of material means of management into bureaucracy. Including warfare, university, state. officer as employer model. Teacher as employer model. End of charisma.

(983) bureaucracy levels social and economic differences and can and has accompanied mass democracy. This also applies to parties, as party becoems more organized it becomes less about charisma and more about members.

(985) democracy not rule of many “what changes is only the way in which the executive leaders are selected and the measure of influence which the demos, or better, which social circles from its midst are able to exert upon the content and direction of administrative activities by means of public opinion.” democratization can increase share of public in rule, but not necessarily so.

(bureaucracy needs democracy to fulfill itself because aristocrats have to be overcome so that merit can be instituted.)

process of passive democratization when monarch pushes towards bureaucratization. Top down democracy.

(987) once established bureaucracy is hard to destroy. It transforms social action into rationally organized action. It is a power instrument for who controls it. under equal conditions it is superior to any other form of social organization. The officials are mere cogs but the ruled can’t replace bureuacracy since nothing can take its place. Even an invader can appropriate an existing bureaucracy. The economic effects of the bureaucracy depend on who is wielding it and how (989).

(994) bureaucracy is most powerful when: Secrecy, dependence of ruler on it, leeway it has in decisions.

(1000) tension between tests as means of measuring merit and the money that education requires. Bureaucrat class emerges against democracy. Democracy needs equality official raise exam bar to keep entrants and challengers outside.. Conclusion on p 1002.

(1111)Chapter 14: Charisma and its transformation (best chapter for me except ch1)

Day to day needs are met by patrimony or rational counterpart bureaucracy. Extraordinary needs are met on a charismatic basis. (is the bureaucratization undermining our ability to deal with unpredictability?). It knows no formality or permanence. (1112) rejects methodical acquisition of money. A pirate can be charismatic. it needs income but not regular forms. They must be free to pursue charismatic calling without a regular job.

(1118)  Charisma is capitalism embodied in enterprise as opposed to everyday capitalism. Colonization and robber capitalism is charismatic. Capitalism has a dual nature, charismatic and bureaucratic but both are internal and coexist in it.

(1119) Household communism versus charisma communism. Communsim means “absence of formal accountability in the consumption sphere, not the rational organiation of production.” In other words charisma consumes of communal produce not own economic produce.

(1120) The reign of genuine charisma ends when it can no longer withhold the unqualified permission to found families and to engage in economic pursuits” Only military life or religious love of unworldly discipline can preserve such communism. Every charisma ends with the introduction of material interest.

(1122) detailed account of different possibilities of routinization of charisma.

(1130) as parties become more organized there is less of a need for charismatic rhetoric to mobilize. Likewise in armies charismatic irrational rhetoric plays its part within rationality.

(1133) it is the fate of charisma to recede with the development of permanent institutional structures.

Charisma routinized, still personal. Then depersonalized. From personal to inherited to linked to an office.

(1142) “wherever war and big hunts do not occur we do not find the charismatic chieftain” emergence of kings from warlords as permannence of war charisma. Once charisma becoems attached to an office it can be transmitted by education.

Note(today in Africa there are still secret societies which are irrational transferral of charisma. Do secret societies pose a real resistance in a rational world?)

(1149) discipline: “consistently rationalized, methodically prepared and exact execution of received order.”

(1151) charisma and discipline in military vary by technology used. (footsoldier needs mroe charisma than archer) but it is not the technology it is discipline that kills charisma on the field (introduction of gunpowder).

(1152) discipline from army is transferred to realm of politics and economics.

Note: absence of charisma in academy signals end of great heroes.

Protestant Ethic:

(3) Question: why are all the lucrative and good positions filled by protestants?

(4) Historical reasons. Rich sectors of germany turned protestant. Why was it he asks that the rich tended to break with church more?

(5) Protestantism is much more extreme than the relaively tolerant and lax catholicism so not escape from church for economic reasons. History however doesn’t explain all discrepancies between protestants and catholics.

(6) Protestants go into skilled labour more than catholics who go to humanities gymnasium. So Why is htere a propensity  for catholics to not go into the skilled and capitalist sections of education and economy? “The explanation of these cases is undoubtedly that the mental and spiritual peculiarities acquired from the environment, here the type of education favoured by the religious atmosphere of the home community and the parental home, have determined the choice of occupation, and through it the professional career.” minorities in general national and religious tend to pursue economic enterprise in the general milieu they are in, this isnt the case for catholics in germany.

(7) “Thus the principal explanation of this difference must be sought in the permanent intrinsic character of their religious beliefs, and not only in their temporary external historico-political situations”

(9) not religiosity, catholics and protestants with varying religiosity differ. Has been said that cathiolic prefers to sleep well, protestant to eat well but it is not valid since even across income distribution it is not the case.

(10) Protestantism combines piety with prosperity in a way that other religions do not seem to do.

(11) Likewise for pietists  and quakers,  all protestants of sorts. Then it is clear that the joy of life is not the cause of economic excellence but something else. “Is it not possible that their (english) commercial superiority and their adaptation to free political institutions are connected in some way with that record of piety which Montesquieu ascribes to them?”

(14) Defining capitalism cannot be done by referring to past categories because it is a new mode, let alone its spirit. So the definition will arise through Weber’s treating of how the spirit came about.”The result is that it is by no means necessary to understand by the spirit of capitalism only what it will come to mean to us for the purposes of our analysis. This is a necessary result of the nature of historical concepts which attempt for their methodological purposes not to grasp historical reality in abstract general formulæ, but in concrete genetic sets of relations which are inevitably of a  specifically unique and individual character.” (14) Definition cannot be conceptual but descriptive.

(17) Ben Franklin as having capitalist spirit (p16) Capital spirit as ethically coloured maxim guiding life. Not just neutral rules but morally superior belief in the life one is leading.

(18) “The circumstance that he ascribes his recognition of the utility of virtue to a divine revelation which was
intended to lead him in the path of righteousness, shows that something more than mere garnishing for purely egocentric
motives is involved.” On capitalist spirit as more than utilitarianism. The collection of money is an end in itself, not to  spend it on comforts of the self but just collecting more money

(19) “The earning of money within the modern economic order is, so long as it is done legally, the result and the expression of virtue and proficiency in a calling; and this virtue and proficiency are, as it is now not difficult to see, the real Alpha and Omega of Franklin’s ethic, as expressed in the passages we have quoted, as well as in all his works without exception” The conception or the capitalist spirit is not a product of capitalism, it existed prior to it.

(20) Capitalism today is a full fledged system with its own mechanisms for rewarding individuals for being capitalist. So it is not the question of present behavior which is logical but of the origins of the capitalist attitude which could not come from one but a community of men. Where was the origins of capitalism?

(21) This is not pure greed and selfishness, for we see in countries with a lot of greed liek italy that capitalism is not well developed,rather plunder is. Nosomething else has to do with hard work that is the capitalist spirit.

(24) Opposite to spirit of capitalism. The opportunity of earning more is less desirable than working less. This is the traditional attitude where a man works as much as he needs to fulfill his needs,

(25) “Labour must, on the contrary, be performed as if it were an absolute end in itself, a calling. But such an attitude is by no means a product of nature. It cannot be evoked by low wages or high ones alone, but can only be the product of a long and arduous process of education. Today, capitalism, once in the saddle, can recruit its labouring force in all industrial countries with comparative ease. In the past this was in every case an extremely difficult problem”

(26) Even among women those from a pietistic background are frugal calculating, rational and are more inclined to do well in education and skilled labour.

(30)Turning of profit is not capitalist spirit, it is an ascetic sense of denying oneself simply to make more money. One can be a capitalist with a traditional ethic. “The old leisurely and comfortable attitude toward life gave way to a hard frugality in which some participated and came to the top, because they did not wish to consume but to earn, while others who wished to keep on with the old ways were forced to curtail their consumption”

(32) Not daredevils and risk takers, but rational temperate even cold calculating individuals who when they first appeared were hated and therefore had to be personally strong as well. They are measured and constant not adventure capitalists. Although it was founed in piety today those who have this spirit are not the pious.

(38) Capitalist spirit is not a natural outgrowth of rationalism. It is a type of rationality  but it wwas by no means telologically emergent from progress of rationality.

(39) Only protestants have concept of a “calling”, Introduced by Luther. “The only way of living acceptably to God was not to surpass worldly morality in monastic asceticism, but solely through the fulfilment of the obligations imposed upon the individual by his position in the world. That was his calling.”

(41) Priestly renunciation of the world is selfish labour is a calling of brotherly love. Since all temporal action is neutral priests are doing no favors by being ascetic. “the statement that the fulfilment of worldly duties is under all circumstances the only way to live acceptably to God”

(42) Thoigh luther would never have agreed to modern interpretations within capitalism that is how it rolled out.

(44) “the objective historical order of things in which the individual has been placed by God becomes for Luther more and more a direct manifestation of divine will”

(47) not national character that explain why calvinism arose from lutheranism in a way that favoured labour.

(49)so not just religion but crossroads between religion and practical ethics.

(55) “The various different dogmatic roots of ascetic morality did no doubt die out after terrible struggles. But the original connection with those dogmas has left behind important traces in the later undogmatic ethics” So though the dogma has died out its impact has lived on.

(60) God can if he wants reveal some hints if you are predestined to heaven or hell. predestination means no magical means or any means to attain grace of god or to avoid damnation. Calvinism god is faced individually. Creates the individual self.

(64) “This makes labour in the service of impersonal social usefulness appear to promote the glory of God and hence to be willed by Him.” No conflict between individual and ethic such as ascetism because everything is preordained. Am I the one elect and how can I tell becomes the most important question. You can tell by gods gifts if he chooses and these are economic success. Duty to consider self chosen since lack of self confidence is temptation by devil.

(67) “On the other hand, in order to attain that self-confidence intense worldly activity is recommended as the most suitable means.47 It and it alone disperses religious doubts and gives the certainty of grace.” Worldly activity not as sign from good but to counteract anxiety. Because confidence is a sign of being elect.

(68) “The Calvinist also wanted to be saved sola fide. But since Calvin viewed all pure feelings and emotions, no matter
how exalted they might seem to be, with suspicion,51 faith had to be proved by its objective results in order to provide a
firm foundation for the certitudo salutis” Only the elect can augment glory of god on earth and how is that done by great works and success.

(72) “The life of the saint was directed solely toward a transcendental end, salvation. But precisely for that reason it was thoroughly rationalized in this world and dominated entirely by the aim to add to the glory of God on earth”

(78) “The combination of faith in absolutely valid norms with absolute determinism and the complete transcendentality of God was in its way a product of great genius.”

Calvinism as worldy ascetism imitated by other churches after it.
Once freed from temptation gods will can be manifest without the intervention of human emotion. Therefore being cold and rational all the time allows gods grace to manifest sometimes. Rationality then in work ascetism. Pietism

Did he choose these four based on conceptual logic or because they statistically seem to be the most ones who have economic success?

Pietism pushes people to be clerks, domestic workers, labourers or patriarchial employer. Calvinism on the other hand is closer to hard legalism and active enterprise of bourgeoise capitalism. This is because pietism focuses on emotional satisfaction in the immediate time as opposed to longterm work.

Methodists. Follow a method to show the emotional satisfaction with oneself by god usually through public meetings combined with ascetism. Calvinism on the other hand held eerything emotional to be illusory. Only empotional certainty of salvation was a sign.
(92) Mehtodism directed the emotion once awakened through conversion into “rational struggle for perfection” so unlike pietism it was not traditional in its emotionality.

Quakers are a baptist sect. These have an ethic that rests unlike calvinism and its branches methodist and pietist on a separate foundation. Church becomes the communtiy of people not an institution in which salvation lies.

Individual revelation was the responsibility of each individual. Baptism of adults is required out of their own free choice not as babies.

(95)No salvation through church for baptist but only by opening oneself up to the everpresent spirit of god.

to get in contact with god’s spirit then once must release everything that is irrational, impulsive and oassionate and subjective and in silence await the sensation of holy spirit,

(97) Magic and flesh psychological waste of time was cut off then and although first generations did not later ones did spend their time in work as the only outlet in which they could be still and rational. This is where they meet with the calvinist ethic since piety according to catholics is closed off work and worldly good works become good.

more time was freed b refusal to be allegiance to a state, to participate in any army. Sincer conscience was paths of gods revelation thinking became important and planning as wel.

(100) ascetism in accordance with gods will is rational planning of whole life and requisite upon all members not just select monsk. Religious life of the saints was in the world and its institutions. Not leisure and enjoyment but only activity pleases god.

(105) modern calvinism, preaching good of hard labour as ascetic, uniqueto western churches. Keeps you occupied defends from temptation. “Along with a moderate vegetable diet and cold baths, the same prescription is given for all sexual temptations as is used against religious doubts and a sense of moral unworthiness: “Work hard in your calling.”23 But the most important thing was that even beyond that labour came to be considered in itself 24 the end of life, ordained as such by God. St. Paul’s “He who will not work shall not eat” holds unconditionally for everyone. Unwillingness to work is symptomatic of the lack of grace.”

Even in wealth one is not exempt from labour for labour is good.This form of christianity assumes there is enough work for everyone for all time on this earth. What if there is not enough work, or what if work damages the environment leading to human demise. This religion sucks! Assumption that wealth cannot be spent on charity because that stops others from working? Is this true Im just making a conjecture. irregular work is not a calling only a carreer is a calling and properly fills time.

(112) interesting here claim that feudal and monarchy protected pleasure seekers against rising ascetic middle class. But Marx shows that these very lords forced the pleasure seekers to work especially in the UK. so who is right? interdasting.

(113) Protestants were a bane on the arts they wouldnt fund them seen as superstitious and wasteful. Weber argues that the emergence of realistic art in holland was a sign as to how morally strict the sense of the times had become. No imagination.

(114) How much of thios is religion affecting people how much is it people putting their practices into religious terms. how much of this is still latent today when people say that germans hate idle talk or pleasantries is it a throwback to protestantisms hate for wasting time on leisure and small talk? Or is religion just a manifestation. how much sweeping generalizations can we make. Are you born into a religion and have no choice or do these people have a choice in their religion? If so then training allows this attitude by family.

(119) loss of religious sense but maintenance of capitalist spirit. When you get rich religiosity decreases, but they retain the initial capitalist spirit and impulses. “Then the intensity of the search for the Kingdom of God commenced gradually to pass over into sober economic virtue; the religious roots died out slowly, giving way to utilitarian worldliness.”

(121) created a worker happy in his occupation as service to god and the employer happy in colecting wealth and employing worker for god. Interesting take what would marx say? Origins of liberalism in calvinism. Hate any political intervention in economics, it intervenes with the favors of god. “”The Puritan wanted to work in a calling; we are forced to do so. For when asceticism was carried out of monastic cells into everyday life, and began to dominate worldly morality, it did its part in building the tremendous cosmos of the modern economic order.””

(124) origins of liberalism in calvinism. Hate any political intervention in economics, it intervenes with the favors of god.

“To-day the spirit of religious asceticism—whether finally, who knows?—has escaped from the cage. But victorious capitalism, since it rests on mechanical foundations, needs its support no longer. The rosy blush of its laughing heir, the Enlightenment, seems also to be irretrievably fading, and the idea of duty in one’s calling prowls about in our lives like the ghost of dead religious beliefs”

“No one knows who will live in this cage in the future, or whether at the end of this tremendous development entirely new
prophets will arise, or there will be a great rebirth of old ideas and ideals, or, if neither, mechanized petrification, embellished with a sort of convulsive self-importance. For of the last stage of this cultural development, it might well be truly said: “Specialists without spirit, sensualists without heart; this nullity imagines that it has attained a level of civilization never before achieved.”” haunting fucking conclusion. Highlights the tension between bureacratic rarionality and viviality.

(125) for future we should complement this study with one on how protestant ascetism itself was influenced by the social and economic conditions under which it developed.

Class Notes:

Ch2: On the difference between formal and substantial economic rationality.

Ch1: Clean definitions like an encyclopedia. Later chapter he reemploys the categories.

The way Weber came to the US. First translated by Parson who used him as an antithesis to Marx. Rejects that material conditions determine idea/thought, other way round. Emphasizes status.

in 1946, Gerrard and Mills reader comes out. Saw Weber as complementing Marx.

Weber on rationalization of institutions and bureaucratization of war. Along with separation and specialization of warrior from means of destruction ultimate  lead to automaton. Countertendencies in private mercenaries today however. so as he emphasizes increasing efficiency he also provides a subtext that as it becomes more rational it becomes more irrational in other ways.

His project was teh writing of a comprehensive conceptual encyclopedia for sociology.

A lot of individual motivation is related not to moving up in class hierarchy but status and not wealth but power.

P926 definition of power. Class is not relational because it is linked to material conditions whereas status is relational cant exist as one.

People motivated by material factors and prestige, status, power.

Max+Weber: In a capitalist world the accumulation of capital is the means to prestige and power. you could get paid low but retain high status. (ex high school teachers) so Weber adds motive to marx’s structural analysis. he shows why people work and accumulate.

Did Weber see his encyclopedia as a periodic table in which different elements combine to produce real things, or as a heuristic ideal?

Science as vocation: Social situation doesn’t affect how you construct ideal type. It theoretically moves to perfection.

Other Weber: Reality is infinite as we need to make choices so for weber there is objectivity and perfectibility of concepts maybe?

Page 4: on social science as causality but studying the subject’s perspective as well. So if he applies this to himself as a researcher he should be aware of his subjectivity.

To be perfect concepts have to be common across geography and time!

In Mainstream this is what is supposed to be know of Weber:

  1. Political community
  2. State (monopoly of legitimate use of force over given territory permanent)
  3. Power
  4. Domination (coercion+consent) (most stabl form combines both, inspires Gramsci)
  5. Forms of legitimate domination
  6. Class
  7. Status

Custom and Habit/usage: A whole realm of social action is done out of habit even in a rational society. 90% of everyday action perhaps.

(Is there a historical trend of rationality broken by occasional charisma?)

Bankers lend to manufacturers who employ workers. Manufacturer gives most of the profit to banker. The worker however only sees the manufacturer as exploitative. So hiding class distinctions helps the real or highest capitalist to escape unseen.

Problem in Protestant ethic is that the historical record doesn’t match his statements, his statistics are not corroboratable. What is interesting is his framework for studying social phenomena. People continue to read these things because they are useful for looking at the contemporary world. The trick is using Weber without falling into his trappings and failures.

In economy and society assumes that bureaucracy exists outside of the economy. Capitalism can exist without bureaucracy and vice versa. Weber’s example of capitalism is Germany 1880, emergence of large bureaucratic organizations.

Even the charismatic leader cannot overcome bureaucracy in the modern era. Once it becomes dominant it cannot be eschewed, it is required for survival.

Weber like Marx projects a future of the world.

He doesn’t account for the fact that China had a bureaucracy and a market economy and was wealthier than Europe in  the past, so his predictions only work if he excludes the Chinese downfall.

Two Weberian paths are open in the 20th century. The first emphasizes rationalization, efficiency and global spread. The second takes rationality for guaranteed but it has a double role. In order to have modern state you need bureaucracy but you need repression  as well to get people to become equalized. Bureaucracy has tension between promoting equality and requiring hierarchy. So there is an increase in surveillance and control by bureaucracy while there is an increase in equality. These two paths equality and surveillance and control seem to be two parallel paths the state is heading in.

Thomas Mann: 3 generation thesis. First generation makes the money. Second generation are organizers work in management. Third generation waste it on the arts.

90% of human behaviour is custom. How do you explain change then? Protestant ethic for example attempts to explain change, how did we get to a capitalist system from an older system that seemed stable and unchanging?

Parsons emphasizes Weber as anti-Marx so protestant  ethic is about how ideas can cause material change. Even though at the end Weber calls for further research to be done on the economic context surrounding the emergence of ideas. Not clear if he is making a causal link between religion and economy or just the coincidence between the two.

Change in system requires communal change in attitude not just individual.

What is the role of charisma figures in bureaucracies. Obama has charisma but he didn’t break the bureaucracy. He did invent in the election system of raising funds, but he was quickly rationalized. He is trained and efficient. Is charisma outside bureaucracy? No.

Bureaucracy has means but no ends, charismatic authority can be seen to be giving ends to the means. Once you neter an institution however the spernatural qualities disappear.

  1. No comments yet.
  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: