5      Max Weber: Great interpreter of social actions[1]

Max Weber covered an impressive array of topics ranging from economy, religion, politics to culture. He argued that inequality not only is an issue of differences in income, but that it also has important political and cultural dimensions. He advocated an approach to sociological understanding that explicitly reckons with the specific cultural and historical context of social actions and the meanings individuals attach to their actions.

• Biography and academic career

21 April 1864 Karl Emil Maximillian Weber was born in Erfurt. Max was the eldest of eight children. His mother, Helene Fallenstein,  had a keen interest in cultural and intellectual affairs and an open eye for the hardships of the poor. Her lifestyle was Calvinistic: sober and ascetic. Taking care of the family was her greatest priority. Max Senior was a distinguished lawyer. He was a member of parliament for the National Liberal Party. In contrast to his wife, he was harsh, self-assured, authoritarian, and hedonistic. Often, these differences gave rise to tensions, especially after Max’s sister Helen died of diphtheria. His mother could never understand that her husband could live on, as if nothing had happened.  

Max was a precocious student. He learned several foreign languages and took a great interest in Ancient History. Intellectually he was extremely talented, physically he was weak. At grammar school, he studied academic books like a university student, writing extensive summaries and making critical notes.[1] He understood and knew everything. Friends and relatives of his parents stimulated him. Among them were politicians, distinguished professors and clergymen. He followed their discussions with great interest, giving him a good insight into German politics. Like his father, he learned to appreciate Realpolitik and abhorred the unrealistic demands of extremists. Father and son had a good antenna for pragmatic and feasible policies.

 In 1882, Max went to Heidelberg to study law. There he enjoyed student life, lost his timidity and learned to socialize with people from all walks of life. Once, he was scarred in the face during a duel. In those days, such a scar was a highly valued sign of masculinity. He befriended his cousin Otto Baumgartner, who studied theology. He had to interrupt his studies for military service. He was posted at Strasbourg. He often visited his aunt and uncle and fell in love with their daughter: Emma Baumgartner. His uncle held a chair in history and Max made a point of attending his lectures; in turn, his uncle became Weber’s mentor.[2] After military service, he went to Berlin to continue his studies, took up an ascetic lifestyle, stayed away from most feasts and parties, and studied like a man possessed. He developed the rigorous working habit that would serve him throughout his academic career.

 He put a lot of energy into his PhD-thesis. The quality of this study on the medieval history of commercial companies was so high that historian and Nobel Prize winner Theodor Mommsen declared that Max Weber should become his successor.[3] In 1894, he accepted a professorship in political economy at the University of Freiburg. He married his cousin Marianne Schnitger, granddaughter of his father’s eldest brother. This meant a painful separation from his first love, his cousin Emma. Marianne, did not like the sexual part of the marital relation. To her it felt like a ‘heavy sacrifice’. This might explain why Max Weber became involved in extra-marital relationships.[4] The pair remained childless. In 1896, Weber was called to Heidelberg to succeed Karl Knies. He took on a heavy workload. Each week, he lectured for many hours and also taught seminars. When Marianne once urged him to take things easier, he remarked: “If I do not work until one o’clock every night, I cannot be a professor.”

 Max Weber did not want to become a politician. His academic career got damaged by unfortunate personal incidents. Once, he clashed with his father who bullied his wife.  Soon after this unhappy event, his father died on a trip to Riga. Max regretted that they had parted in this angry fashion. Soon he began to show signs of mental and physical exhaustion. In 1898, at the end of the spring semester, he suffered a nervous breakdown. A trip to Lake Geneva and a stay at a sanatorium improved his health, but not enough to prevent another nervous breakdown at Christmas. It took six years before he could lecture again, and several more years before he was fully recovered.[5]

 Gradually Weber resumed reading books on art, history and philosophy. He studied Simmel’s Philosophy of Money. He started to write long essays, but could not teach full terms. Hence, he felt that he did not deserve a full salary. In October 1903, he resigned his teaching post and became honorary professor. A generous inheritance from his grandfather helped to solve his financial problems. During these years, Max Weber travelled a great deal. He visited Corsica, Florence, Rome, France, Holland, and Switzerland. In 1904, he visited the World Exhibition in St. Louis, USA.

Randall Collins and others have presented possible explanations for Weber’s mental problems and illnesses. Firstly, there is mention of an oedipal complex. Max, who dearly loved his mother, felt that somehow he had killed his father. Another explanation states that he never resolved his loyalty conflict towards his two very different parents. A third possible explanation points to sexual frustration. For many years, he compensated a lack of sexual fulfilment in his marriage with heroic ethics and an ascetic lifestyle, but around 1893, still in Freiburg, he developed a close relationship with his student, Else von Richthofen, Marianne’s closest friend. After Weber’s death, Else confessed that the friendship had become a sexual relationship. In 1911, Mina Tobler began to play a significant role in Weber’s life. She aroused his interest in fine arts and music, but also his sexual feelings.[6]

During the first Great War, Max Weber briefly served as manager of military hospitals. He observed the workings of a bureaucracy run by amateurs and worked hard to increase their efficiency. Meanwhile, he became highly critical of Kaiser Wilhelm. The war had turned into a disaster for Germany. The people demanded the removal of Emperor Wilhelm. The latter took refuge in The Netherlands. Weber joined a movement that strove for peace through negotiations. He became a member of the delegation that went to Versailles to arrange the conditions for surrender. After the war, a reborn Max Weber gave impressive guest lectures in Munich and Vienna on topics such as Science as Vocation and Politics as Vocation. This period of activity did not last long. In 1920, Weber fell ill with pneumonia. He died on the 14^th of June.

5.2   Methodology and Epistemology

Max Weber warned that a strong emphasis on methodology could become a curse instead of a blessing. However, for any science, methodological issues are important. Granting that social reality is very complex and historically contingent, Weber tried to find scientific methods that would take care of the special problems posed by human consciousness and individual will. He developed two methods to help social scientists getting a grip on social reality: (1) the construction of Ideal Types and (2) the method of Interpretative Understanding (Verstehen).

As long as one claims the predicate scientific, one has to accept that proofs have to be delivered with the help of logic reasoning and strictly objective methods. Hence, he scorned those ‘soft-minded humanists,’ who sailed around such intellectual rigour and relied solely on empathic understanding and intuition. Empathic understanding and intuition may lead to new and potentially fruitful ideas, but they have to be tested with the help of ‘hard’ scientific methods, to turn them in valid insights.

His plea for hard and rigid methods used in physics was not welcomed by most of his colleagues. Germany was under the spell of idealistic philosophy. Immanuel Kant had argued that all that we can know is mediated through our ideas. He does not deny that there is an external, material world, but contends that we can never know ‘das Ding an sich’ (the thing in itself). We can only observe the world through the lenses of our conceptual framework.[7] Weber agreed. We can never learn all there is to know about a thing completely and precisely. This is all the more true if that ‘thing’ is social. Social reality is constituted by an infinite, apparently chaotic set of concrete events, dispersed over numerous people, countless social interactions, geographical locations, and historical periods. Hence, scientists should always search for and select meaningful patterns from the overwhelming multiplicity of phenomena with the help of preliminary ideas that they have already gathered in their mind. However, all social scientists do not share a similar culturally shaped set of basic concepts and values. So, often other researchers must criticize them and amend their findings and conclusions to push social science ahead.[8]

         The discovery of the water mole

In 1798, physical scientist Dobson studied the stuffed skin of a small animal that Australian colonizers called a water mole. It had the size of a mole, tiny eyes, a dark brown furry skin, but a beaver tail. It was very flat and web-footed. The five toes on its forefeet had claws. So, it could swim and dig a hole. It could stay under water for long periods, but had to surface for air. In that respect it resembled an amphibian. The female laid eggs, breastfed their young, although no nipples could be observed. It was billed like a duck. Was it a small beaver, a mole or a duck? Later, new specimens became available for study, but it still was hard to understand what type of animal it was. It breastfed its young, but breast glands and nipples could not be found. A quarter of a century had passed before Johann F. Meckel discovered mammalian glands. They cover the whole body, but are only visible during the period of breastfeeding. So, it was a mammal after all. Yet it did lay it eggs, and the oviduct did not end in a womb but in a cloaca like that of birds. The debate on the correct classification of this animal, a creature which averaged about 50 centimetres in length, went on for many years and was finally decided by William Hay Caldwell in 188. He classified these animals as monotremes oviparous, ovum meroblastic. Clearly this was a very rare species that combined the characteristics of mammals with those of reptiles and birds. This case splendidly illustrates that observations can be put into words only if we are in the possession of the right frame of reference, only if we have the right concepts. Every new observation has to be fitted in an existing system of categories. But if this fit is awkward, it will induce us to change our system of categories to reach a better match between theory and observations. As soon as we have opted for the category mammal, scientists are motivated to look for characteristics that are typical for mammals. Other scientists who wondered about the birdlike or reptile-like characteristics went searching for further proof to bolster their claims. The history of the discovery and classification of the duckbilled platypus clearly shows that at the end of the day observed facts will overrule wrong theories. It also shows, as philosopher Charles Pierce would have it, that the torch of truth goes from hand to hand. Doing science resembles running a relay race.[9]

5.3. Interpretative methods

5.3.1 Dilthey’s plea for an interpretative sociology

German philosopher Wilhem Dilthey (1833-1911) classified the scientific world into two spheres. The contrast between social science and physics is a contrast between mind and matter. To Dilthey this must lead to radical different methods of research. So, his perspective on “Verstehen” (deep understanding or interpretation), needs extra attention. To him, history and other social sciences are empirical disciplines. But social sciences are challenged by the facts that humans are more than matter, that they have a mind. Qua methodology, this deserves extra attention.

 The natural sciences use general concepts that go beyond the exceptional and unique qualities of single phenomena. These ‘generalizing concepts’ deliberately describe the common elements within a group of phenomena. These concepts are used to discover and test general laws that explain specific causal relations between phenomena. In this respect Wilhelm Windelband (1848-1915) speaks of a nomothetical science, referring to the Greek word nomos that signifies law, order, and general principle. Windelband takes a historic-idealistic stance. Cultural sciences must use ‘individualizing’ concepts that highlight the uniqueness and particularity of concrete social and psychological phenomena. To Dilthey the main objective of social sciences is not the production of general scientific laws, but the ideographical description and interpretation of unique events.  

5.3.2 Hermeneutics

How do we arrive at valid interpretation of social situations and events? The idea for a hermeneutic understanding of ancient historic events and texts came from difficulties with interpretations of The Bible. The idea was that the content of The Bible represents the words of God. So these texts should be clear and speak for themselves. However, theologians and members of the clergy disagree about the true meaning of specific words, sentences and verses of The Bible. So, how can we solve the problem of finding the true meaning? The main principle of hermeneutics is that separate verses have to be understood in relation to the content of other parts of the Bible. This can and often will be a painstaking and time-consuming process. Often this might bring some clarification that will solve the dispute over the right meaning. But not always. Other interpreters may use another combination of related verses or attach other meanings to specific words. So the process will continue until all differences of interpretation are being erased.

5.3.3         Weber’s Ideal types: their construction and their function

Also Philosopher Heinrich Rickert (1863-1936) was convinced that the cultural sciences could apply methods of the natural sciences. There are social actions that are so common, that they can be generalized to all societies, though not all. The social sciences need specific methods too. Otherwise, they run the risk of overlooking the cultural and the subjective. Hence we cannot study them with the help of general methods.

Weber disagreed. He asserted that it was not possible to explain particular and unique phenomena without the help of generalized concepts; without some ‘nomological’ knowledge of causal theories.[10] Social scientists are bound to explain particular cases with the help of general concepts and law-like statements that describe the relation between the phenomena described by these concepts.[11] But Weber acknowledged that there was a significant distinction between natural and cultural sciences. Hence, he looked for a third way that would do justice to both approaches. That he intended to ride two horses can be learned from the following quotation:

           “We want to understand the surrounding reality of life in which we are placed in its uniqueness – that is, on the one hand the relationship and cultural significance of its individual appearance in its present configuration, and on the other hand the basis of its being historically so and not having become otherwise.”[12]

The first part of this quotation clearly shows a historicist approach, whereas the last part illustrates that Weber wanted more than to interpret a phenomenon in its actual historic context. He always searched for causal explanations. To Weber, the cultural analyst must be able to sift the significant from the insignificant. What is important in one period need not be important in another. Since human values change over time, cultural sciences have to produce changing insights. So, from time to time they have to think of new concepts.

Ideal Types

To solve the problem of coming to grips with social reality Weber came with the idea to construct theoretical models or ‘ideal types.’ He wanted to get to the core of social phenomena, by focusing on rationally pure concepts and putting the multiplicity of less important aspects aside. Rationally constructed ideal types could lead us to a better understanding of concrete historical events and social processes.

          “This construction has a utopian character, that has been gained through an analytical accentuation (gedankliche Steigerung) of certain elements from reality, … For empirical research the ideal-type serves as a heuristic means for developing the ability to determine causal factors (Zurechnungsurteil schulen): it is not a hypothesis, but it can indicate the direction for the formation of hypotheses.”[13]

Ideal-types should function as guides for unveiling and explaining specific social actions. Ideal-types could bridge the gap between an infinitely varied social reality that seem to block any meaningful understanding and a limited number of well-constructed general concepts that could help us to grapple with this complex and apparently chaotic reality. He looked for a workable compromise between an overzealous and painstaking description of reality and lean theoretical abstraction. In his view, the best way to arrive at a meaningful understanding of social actions was an analytical highway built on ideal-typical constructions. They must be constructed via scrutinous observation of social reality, by using the imagination as well as the creative imagination of the researcher, or community of researchers. reality examination. Ideal-types should serve to link nomothetical and ideographical methods, and enable a good match between causal explanation and interpretative understanding.[14]

 To construct a meaningful ideal-type, researchers should set aside a large number of elements, and save only a very small number of related characteristics that are particularly significant to their given study. The elements that have been singled out for the creation of ideal type of a specific phenomenon should necessarily be a great help for its location and description. Ideal types must be composed of transparent concepts, and should be applicable with ease.[15] These theoretically constructed ideal-types do not exist in reality. Ideal types are only heuristic means that can help us to become better informed about our world.

Weber’s ideal types of social action, authority and bureaucracy – to be discussed further on –  have become widely known. They form beacons that are easily recognized by other sociologists and laymen. When we have constructed a pure or ideal type, for instance of democracy, then we can use it as a yardstick for analysing and comparing existing democracies. The ideal-type of democracy has a free press, independent judges, free elections, different political parties. Real democracy differs from the constructed ideal type and from each other. But comparing the level of freedom of the press, the independence of the judiciary system, the variety of political parties and who have voting rights and who do not have them, for instance because they are deemed too young, helps us to learn more about developments in real democracies. From such comparative  studies we can learn which democracies are in danger of becoming autocracies or even tyrannies. In the first quarter of the 21^st century a growing number of scientists, politicians, political analysts, journalists, writers and columnist are drawing our attention to social forces that are undermining many democracies, by restraining the freedom of the press, by sidelining constitutional law, and curtailing the independency of judges.[16]

5.3.4 Social actions

Weber also put a lot of energy into analysing and discussing what he termed interpretative understanding. To him this topic was crucial, as becomes clear in reading his definition of Sociology:

          “Sociology is a science that aims to understand social action in an interpretive fashion and thereby explain its course and consequences causally.”[17]

Weber’s definition shows that his intentions are both interpretative and causally analytical. To make any scientifically meaningful statement about social actions every interpretative explanation must be turned into a verifiable causal statement. From a methodological perspective, Max Weber counts for two.

Weber always took a great interest in the meanings that people attach to their actions. He defined social actions as forms of behaviour that concern coexistence with other people. Social actions refer to all actions in which individuals are aware of each other and therefore are considering the thoughts, will, and feelings of the other. Actions are social if the participants attach meaning to their collective situation. Actions that have no meaning for individuals, that do not take the interest or the perspective of the other into account, are not social actions. They fall outside the realm of sociology. Social behaviour is behaviour that focuses on the past, present, or future behaviour of other individuals.[18]

 For Weber, the ultimate unit of analysis is the concrete individual, acting socially. To him, only socially acting individuals are enactor of meaningful behaviour. Concepts referring to collective wholes such as the state, the church, feudalism, or capitalism have to be redressed to actions of individuals. In contrast to Durkheim, Weber did not speak of behaviour determined by society as a whole, but of behaviour motivated and rendered meaningful by the individual. Weber strongly opposed holism. He saw societies and cultures as products of meaning-giving processes. Social wholes do exist, but they do not act. Only individuals act on behalf of a government, business firm, political party, or a family. This approach is called methodological individualism. To make social phenomena transparent, one has to start with the observation and analysis of social actions of individuals. Their subjective meanings form the core elements of any sociological analysis. Here, subjective does not mean ‘partisan’ or ‘untrue’, but ‘from the perspective of the subject’, ‘from the motivational drives of the individual’. Sociologists should keep in mind that humans give meaning to significant elements of their situation and act on the basis of a plan.

5.3.5 Interpretations and explanations

In Weber’s view, sociologists should search for law-like generalizations in social behaviour, and uncover the meaning that people attach to their social actions using the interpretive method. The explanation not only has to be meaningful (sinnhaft) as well as causally adequate. Purely causal and statistical analyses can only produce incomplete and unsatisfactory images of reality. They must be supplemented and filled in with the help of interpretations based on what we know of relevant cultural meanings. In this manner, the cultural sciences deliver an extra achievement that lies outside of the range of the methods of physical sciences. Of course, the physical sciences do not need this extra tool. Their objects of study have no mind of their own.

 Weber rejected Dilthey’s ‘romantic’ view of interpretation, in which understanding is set at a par with intuitive re-living or something as uncontrollable as empathy. Weber emphasized that the interpretative method also presupposes nomological knowledge of observable patterns in people’s behaviour. His main interest lay in understanding patterns of behaviour. He was not interested in the deeply hidden elements of human personality. That he left for the psychologists. He explicitly argued in favour of an interpretative sociology based on an objective, scientific approach. He discerned between immediate and explanatory interpretation and spoke of actual or direct understanding if the meaning of an observable form of behaviour could be understood immediately.[19] Raymond Aron gives the example of a cab driver stopping for a red traffic light. Everybody knows that particular rules have been introduced to regulate traffic in order to prevent accidents and that people who do not stop for red traffic lights run the risk of crashing into another car or being fined. In the course of our daily lives, the meaning of most patterns of behaviour is immediately clear to us, because we have experienced these patterns of behaviour hundreds of times before. We are familiar with the cultural context in which these forms of behaviour are reproduced. However, as soon as we enter a situation that is entirely new to us, as soon as we meet people who have been raised in an entirely different cultural, we may encounter some difficulty in understanding their actions.

Whenever Weber discusses interpretive sociology, he focuses on explanatory understanding. We should never accept the most evident explanation, but test our hypothetical explanation first; that is, we must test its validity with the help of widely accepted scientific procedures. An explanation is adequate as a meaningful interpretation if the phenomenon has been made comprehensible within the framework of a prevailing set of norms and values.  

 Weber did not contend that interpretative understanding of meaningful behaviour is entirely different from causal explanation. On the contrary, he stressed that such an interpretation was a necessary precondition for finding a complete causal explanation. Insight into the motives of individuals is indispensable. Here, it might be relevant to quote an aphorism of Friedrich Schlegel’s: “For understanding someone well it is necessary to be smarter than this person, and calculations are the real (teleological) causal factors that always have to be taken into consideration. Any explanation that restricts itself only to physical phenomena, such as a bankruptcy, a disappointing harvest, or the birth of child, will fall short of being a good explanation of social actions. The restriction to study only observable behaviour boils down to the exclusion of important aspects of human existence. It ignores that individuals are social beings that strive to achieve certain goals and render meaning to all their actions and those of others.[20]

In hermeneutics, the method of Verstehen is deliberately used and propagated as an alternative to causal explanation. Weber energetically placed himself at a good distance from this ‘anti-scientific’ position. As we already have seen, he was not interested in meaning for its own sake; he was after meaning for the sake of causally explaining social action. In many respects, he differed quite a bit from Georg Simmel. Simmel tended to focus on meaningful forms of “sociation”. Weber was more interested in the content of interactions in huge ‘complexes of meaning.’

In Weber’s view, many social acts are not the result of deliberate intentions, but unintended consequences of well-considered plans. It is this focus on unintended consequences that his primary aim was searching for causal explanations, explanations that do not consist of mere interpretative understanding of the intentions of individual persons, but have to rest on the interactions of groups of persons within broad complexes of meanings. As a historian and social historian he focused on understanding patterns of collective activity and their outcomes, whether they were intended or not.[21] Dilthey, a theologian by training, wanted to interpret, nothing more. Weber wanted to interpret first to enable him to explain which set of factors might have caused the occurrence of specific social situations.[22]

5.4 Objectivity in Social Science

Despite Weber’s stress on the fact that social actions are embedded in history, and despite his explicit attention to subjective processes, he wanted the humanities to strive for an objective approach. In his 1904 article Objectivity in Social Science and Social Policy, he manifested himself as the great champion of practicing social science in an objective way. This is difficult, for social scientists are deeply embedded in their culture and are predisposed with the subject under investigation. In principle, social scientists can study the rich or the poor, medical doctors or quacks, great statesmen or demagogues with the same degree of distance, but in practice things may be different. Nonetheless, in view of the demand of objectivity, it is extremely important that scientists do all they can to prevent cultural biases and personal political preferences from interfering with their methods of gathering and analysing data.

 Quite a few theorists stress that Weber started the ‘value freedom dispute.’[23] Weber really meant freedom of value judgment (Werturteilsfreiheit), a concept that is closely connected to value commitment (Wertbeziehung), a term he borrowed from Rickert. Zijderveld blames Weber for preferring the term value freedom to freedom of value judgment, as this has triggered some unnecessary disputes.[24] Strictly speaking, there is no such thing as value free research, since the goals and norms of science such as seeking the truth and the use of objective methods and sound reasoning are important social values in itself.

= = = = = =

Weber strongly opposed science based on political ideology or religious dogma. Science cannot answer the question what people or politicians should or must do. At most they can tell or warn politicians for the choices they make. There is an unbridgeable chasm between science and ethics, morals, and religion. Science can only attempt to find truths about reality.

The objective of  value-free fashion tells social scientists not to set up their investigations in such a way that the outcome will fit their political views or the interests of the people who commissioned their study: for example, by choosing a highly selective sample of probable allies of a specific issue. It is the task of the research community to monitor their peers and to scrutinize their work for missteps in this respect.

 Echoing Nietzsche, Weber stated that the choice for science was just as rational or irrational as the choice for a career in art, business, religion or politics. Choosing scientific work, however, does commit you to an objective approach from start to finish. You can’t have one without the other. The rational method alone ensures empirical knowledge that is transmissible from one subject to another in a critical manner.[25]

5.3   Rationalization as Leitmotiv

Weber was fascinated by the ongoing rationalization of the Western world. In 1920, at the beginning of the Protestant Ethic, he posed the following question:

          “What combination of circumstances has led to the fact that precisely in the Occident, and in the Occident only, cultural phenomena have appeared, which – as we like to think, at least – lie in a line of development that is of universal significance and validity? Only the West offers ‘science’ that has reached a stage of development that we today consider as ‘valid’. … [K]nowledge and observation of extraordinary refinement have existed elsewhere, above all in India, China, Babylonia, and Egypt. But Babylonian and any other astronomy lacked – which makes the development of the Babylonian astronomy all the more astounding – a mathematical foundation that was first formulated by the Hellenes. Indian geometry lacked proof, again a product of Greek minds, the latter also being the first in creating mechanics and physics.”[26]

In other parts of the world, people were engaged in scientific activities, but the forefathers of science in the western world were the first to introduce rational proof, controlled experiments, systematic methods, and the requirement of objectivity. At present, the rational approach to science has penetrated all continents.

 Before going into the different ways in which Weber applied his concept of rationalization, let us first give some attention to his typology of main motives for social action. He distinguished the following pure types or motives for social action:

1        instrumental or goal oriented rationality (Zweckrationalität);

2        value rationality (Wertrationalität);

3        emotions;

4        traditions, customs, habits[27]

Humans act rationally when they are conscious and calculative initiators of acts. They act in a non-rational way when they are solely directed by feelings or habits.

Instrumental or goal-oriented rationality is rational because it is directed towards the pursuit of a premeditated objective with the help of carefully considered and selected means that, very likely, will make the act successful. In view of the best information available, all alternative goals and means have been dismissed because the chosen goals and means promise to be more useful, efficient, or effective. Other translations of Zweckrationalität are functional, technical and formal rationality. Another translation could be utilitarian rationality. During the process of weighing the pros and cons of alternative goals and means possible effects will be taken into account.

 Value rationality refers to actions directed at values that are not rational, such as the goal to preserve one’s virtue or honour. They are based on an absolute and conscious belief in the great value of some ethical, aesthetic, religious or other form of behaviour. Value rationality refers to the pursuit of absolute ends for their own sake only, independent of any prospects of external success.[28] Value rationality springs from the conviction that a certain action has an intrinsic value (Eigenwert), whatever its use, economic effect, or consequence. It meaning does not lie in the achievement of an ulterior result, but in carrying out that specific action for its own sake. Yet, these actions can be called rational insofar as the means are rationally selected, for instance, by taking prevailing norms and values into account that might be based on religious, ethical or aesthetic values. For example, the captain of a sinking ship is supposed to be the last person to leave the ship, even if this means that he will die. Were the captain to abuse his authority to safe his own life first, this would be considered a dishonourable act and would haunt him for the rest of his life.

Emotional actions are motivated by feelings; for instance, crying at the death of a loved one, or getting angry with a naughty child. However, if emotional actions are ‘played’ to achieve a certain goal, for instance, more attention from a parent or partner, then it becomes an instrumentally rational act. In this case the emotional drama clearly is a goal-oriented social action.

 Traditional actions are determined by ingrained habituation. Prevailing customs and habits can be so deeply internalised that most individuals do not bother to reflect on the significance of these actions. In this respect, they mirror purely emotionally driven actions. Traditional and habitual actions form the great bulk of all everyday actions.

 In everyday reality many social actions are based on a combination of motives. Nonetheless, this typology helps us to compare social actions and situations. Thus we can learn whether, historically, some type is gaining dominance. Most sociologists are convinced that rational, goal-oriented actions gradually have become very dominant, degrading all the other ideal typical motives for social action. The world has been and still is witnessing a strong trend towards instrumental rationalization.

5.3.1 Different meanings of rationalization

Weber was aware of the multiplicity of motives for social action. He acknowledged that most acts take place in a situation of limited consciousness or total unconsciousness. Yet he was convinced that modern societies exhibit a steady increase of instrumental-rational actions. Efficient application of means is prioritized. More and more, behaviour based on values other than economic profit or self-interest is deemed worthless. The interests of the economy and the technical sciences have gained and still are gainning ground at the cost of traditions and feelings. Furthermore, Weber shed light on the modern trend towards a rational development of political authority. Rulers endowed with power based on tradition gave way to the authority of the cool, calculating heads of state of our day and age. Should he have lived now, he would not have been so sure about this, I assume. Though, in general, modern Western leaders govern within the strict lines of legal prescripts and the guidelines for public governance, there are exceptions to this rule. . Nowadays we can witness democratically chosen leaders that are expanding their authoritarian power, manipulating political processes, ignoring constitutional laws, influencing judges, and curtailing the free press.[29]  

Randall Collins discusses the following three chief meanings of rationalization. The first and most widely known is instrumental rationality. It forms the ideational motor of modern capitalism. Most transactions that take place on the free market are goal-oriented actions that serve the self-interest of the actors. No longer are these transactions hindered by sacred taboos, traditions, or privileges of specific groups. Utility is the sole motive behind all of these acts. In its pure, but non-existent form, the free market offers the text book example of instrumental rationality in a positive as well as a negative sense; positive, in the sense of calculability and effectiveness; negatively, in the sense of the total lack of traditional, religious, and moral restrictions. At other points Weber sets the rational against the traditional. Here, he refers to organizations that succeed in manipulating the world according to their own interests, for instance, by reducing nature to a means for generating profits.

 A third meaning is that of bureaucratization. For Weber, ideal-typically, bureaucracy was a more rational way of organizing administrative activities than the traditional method of carrying out governmental decisions of the past. An important element of rationality is its predictability and its regularity of standardized procedures.

Rogers Brubaker follows a slightly different approach. He does not speak of chief meanings of instrumental rationality, but speaks of core elements that frequently return in Weber’s writings. They refer to:

• The use of human intelligence and the increase in knowledge;
• Increased control of nature, men, and social organizations;
• The growth of formal relations at the cost of personal relationships.[30]

These meanings can easily be listed under the three core elements mentioned by Brubaker. Instrumental rational actions can only be achieved with the help of human intelligence; both sociologists mention control and the growth of formal relations and the decrease of personal relations as typical of bureaucratic organizations. The following scheme charts the manifestations of rationalization relations within various fields.

Scheme 5.1 Significance of rationality in different contexts    

5.3.2 Rationality in Western music

We can assume that the first melodic singing emerged within prehistoric tribal societies. Songs were based on a limited number of tones and a simple rhythm. For many ages, mankind did not observe further developments. It was about a thousand years ago that European monks developed notation system for their religious songs. A few centuries later, they developed the 12-tone scale. The 13th tone is a sound that is in perfect harmony with the first tone and forms the start of the same scale at a higher pitch. Later people discovered that some notes, for instance the first, third and fifth tone of the scale, could be sung simultaneously, producing harmonious chords, that is, combinations of different notes that are pleasing to human ears. Later more complex chords were discovered. On the basis of these consonances, composers create compositions in which the main melody is supported with other melodic lines or interspersed with counter melodies. With the help of musical notation, all musicians can learn which sounds they have to perform, at which moment and with what speed or rhythm. After having prepared themselves individually, professional musicians need time for rehearsing with the complete orchestra and the conductor when. Clearly, a very high degree of rationalization is required to realize a brilliant performance of a composition by a symphonic orchestra that consists of about hundred musicians. It demands standardization and repetitive fine-tuning of musical instruments, perfect control of the sound, the rhythm and the volume. Furthermore, it takes years of training by excellent musical pedagogues, as well as near-perfect bureaucratic organization for planning collective rehearsals and performances. In this respect, Western music has gone further than any other form of music. Beautiful melodies, fascinating rhythms, and virtuous artists can be found on every continent, in every country, and in every musical style, but the level of organization, cooperation, mutual adjustment and bureaucratic planning of Western classical music has no parallel elsewhere.[31]

5.4   Capitalism

Weber saw the development of capitalism in the sixteenth and seventeenth century as part of a much broader process of rationalization. The desire to get more possessions is as old as humanity. It is not the essence of capitalism. The most striking element is the calculated and rational manner in which profit making is executed.[32] What characterizes capitalism is the constant pursuit of profit by means of continuous, rational, enterprise. This entails calculation in terms of financial costs. Any business not acting in this fashion is doomed to fail. Fierce competition will drive it out of the market. Weber concurs with Marx on the role of competition in disciplining individual capitalists (and workers). It forces individuals to conform to capitalist rules of action. If not, manufacturers and shops will go bankrupt and workers will lose their job.[33] All businesses, big, medium and small, must continuously watch their competitors and always look for new profitable opportunities. A rational mentality is a very important prerequisite of a capitalist economy. It is the capitalistic organization of labour and its calculability and its reliability that makes economies more productive than other systems.

Modern capitalism involves the appropriation of all physical means of production – land, machinery, tools, et cetera, as disposable property of autonomous private industrial enterprises. Full-fledged capitalism also requires ‘free labour’. Workers must be free, but also be compelled to sell their labour on the market. Formally, we can speak of free labourers, because they are no slaves. If there is a reserve army of free labourers, the employer can select the best among them, the ones that are healthy, strong, skilled and willing to work. Then he is in a position to sack unproductive and ill-disciplined workers, as he has no personal obligations to them, unlike the owners of slaves. When capitalism experiences a downturn, then many poor and unemployed workers will find themselves in dire situations, unless society has developed systems of welfare programs, that could elp them through periods of economic crises.  

 For Weber, modern capitalism could only flourish in a context of modern law. For instance, it could never have reached this level of calculability and predictability in the Arabic system of Kadi justice, in which judges decide on the basis of their innate sense of justice, and, surely, not within a system based on the cryptic words of oracles.[34] Likewise, modern capitalism could not have flourished in a system of patrimonial politics, in which important decisions depend on the mood of the ruler and someone’s social relation to him. Under such conditions it is very difficult to make rational financial decisions and to plan ahead. Hence, the rationalization of public government is a necessary condition for the growth of modern capitalism. 

 In addition, the legal control of the owner over the workplace, the tools, machines, the raw material and the end products are of the utmost importance. Thus, the entrepreneur can oversee everything. He can plan production and production costs exactly. Here, Weber followed Marx’ analysis. Weber observed this process of expropriation of means of production within other domains as well. It can be seen in scientific research, governmental bureaucracies, and privately organized services. The main causes are spectacular technological development and growth of organizations. Technologically advanced tools and machines are too expensive to be owned by individual workers. Technological innovation and the need for cost reduction have sidelined many small firms based on skilled handicrafts.[35] But all of these structural and institutional conditions together do not suffice to explain the striking growth of modern capitalism in the West and elsewhere. In Weber’s view, a number of crucial factors are still unexplained. He went looking for these missing links within the cultural sphere: within the spirit of capitalism and the ethic of Protestantism, and the elective affinity (Wahlverwandtschaft)[36] that exists between these two cultural phenomena.

5.4.1 The spirit of capitalism

Modern capitalism is very distinct from its predecessors. This is easily verifiable in faraway places, were people live according to ancient traditions, not yet fully connected to the global economy. In these traditional cultures most people prefer not to work more than is absolutely necessary. They stop working as soon as they can survive for a few days. They will only restart working if they really need the money.

“A man does not ‘by nature’ wish to earn more and more money, but simply to live as he is accustomed to live and to earn as much as is necessary for that purpose. Wherever modern capitalism has begun its work of increasing the productivity of human labour by increasing its intensity, it has encountered the immensely stubborn resistance of this leading trait of pre-capitalist labour.”[37]

The expansion of capitalism needed a completely different set of values. Admittedly, in ancient history, there have been people with a voracious hunger for wealth and money. At the time, however, their behaviour was seen as immoral. In modern capitalism, getting rich is highly valued. The rich and beautiful have become the ultimate role models for many people. This has become even more true in our days of rampant social media. Their algorithms are driving people to ever more consumption and cosmetic surgery. Nowadays, this attitude to work in order to get rich is no longer restricted to a few isolated individuals. It has become so widespread that sociologists have begun to study its historical origin and social consequences. Thus, the question arises: How could the search for economic profit change from a vulgar drive into a universally respected motive?

In his search for an answer, Weber focussed on ‘the spirit of capitalism’. Here we observe a noticeable difference with Marx. The latter seemed to be solely interested in the structure of capitalism and the functioning of the free market with its cut-throat competition that forces employers to exploit their workers. Weber’s focus was directed at the norms and values that supported and legitimised capitalism. His point of departure was the book Advice to a Young Tradesman by American moralist Benjamin Franklin, published in 1748. [38] Telling quotations of the spirit of capitalism are:

          “Remember, that time is money. He that can earn ten shillings a day by his labour, and goes abroad, or sits idle, one half of that day, though he spends but six pence during his diversion or idleness, ought not reckon that the only expense; he has really spent, rather thrown away, six shilling.”

          “Remember, that credit is money. … This amounts to a considerable sum where a man has good and large credit, and makes good use of it.”

          “Remember, that money is of the prolific, generating nature. Money can beget money, and its offspring can beget more, … till it becomes a hundred pounds. … He that kills a breeding sow, destroys all her offspring to the thousands generation. He that murders a crown destroys all that it might have produced, even scores of pounds.”

          “The most trifling actions that affect a man’s credit are to be regarded. The sound of your hammer at five in the morning, or at eight at night, heard by a creditor, makes him easy six months longer; but if he sees you at a billiard table, or hears your voice in a tavern, when you should be at work, he sends for his money the next day.”

The spirit of capitalism is a philosophy of thrift and diligence. It is a song of praise for the entrepreneur who does not squander time or money, who punctually delivers what he has promised, for these traits contribute to his reliability. It is more than a way of life; it is an ethic for doing business and earning money. Franklin’s lessons on business ethics intrigued Max Weber, for this ethos was lacking in premodern economies.[39] In his search for the roots of the spirit of capitalism Weber found the answer in the doctrines and lifestyle of Puritan Protestants.

5.5 Protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism

In The Protestant ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism Weber  explained that the Protestant ethic stimulated the growth of capitalism. His main hypothesis was that the flourishing of capitalism in North-West Europe was related to the advent of Protestant morality. He agreed that material factors are important in explaining salient social evolutions. But to him, they are only part of the story. A full explanation also needs cultural factors.   

 In many European regions, the necessary social and political preconditions, such as a reserve army of wage labourers, a market system and sufficiently developed technology, were present. Yet capitalism did not bloom in all of Europe. Weber found that specific religious doctrines are essential in guiding human behaviour. A strong belief directs social activity in specific ways. To get an idea of the formidable hold religion had on society in the 16^th and 17^th century, we should keep in mind what nowadays happens in some religious sects or in fundamentalist groups. Any significant breach of a religious rule could lead to exclusion from rituals or sacraments. It could even lead to excommunication.

 Weber started his investigation with a good body of statistical data at hand. He found that Protestants in Europe were wealthier than Catholics. They also sent a greater number of children to schools, in particular schools that taught practical courses such as mathematics and bookkeeping. Then, he presented a description of the spirit of modern capitalism, as it was manifested by the attitudes and motives of entrepreneurs. The third step in his argument showed that the specific manner in which the Puritan Protestants approached work and did business, closely matched the mindset of capitalist businessmen. In principle, Protestant theology was not favourable towards making profits. But Weber made clear that religious doctrine had been adjusted in a practical fashion that did fit the core elements of the spirit of capitalism. The brilliance of his work lies in his willingness to move beyond the official theological doctrines of Calvin and his revered colleagues. In formulating his theory, Weber looked for extra growth hormones of capitalism in the doctrines as they were interpreted by local ministers and ‘translated’ for laymen for daily usage.

 To prove his point, he also began to study the relation between the economy and Ancient Judaism, Confucianism, Taoism, Hinduism, and Islam. Unfortunately, his early long period of physical and mental discomfort and his death prevented an in-depth study of the relationship between these religions capitalism.

5.5.1 Calvinist ethic

The most important doctrines of Calvinism are that the whole universe is God’s creation and that all that exists only has meaning in the light of God’s will. God does not exist for the pleasure of people, but people exist for the glory of God. Secondly, the human mind is unable to fathom the deep motives of the Almighty. It pleases God that humans can only discover small fragments of the divine truth.[40] The third principle is the doctrine of predestination, which says  that only a very, very small group is predestined to go to heaven, to receive God’s eternal grace. Calvinists believe that God is almighty and all knowing. Hence he has already predestined whether an individual will go to heaven or to hell before he or she is born. There is no way in which people can change this destiny. The slightest suggestion that people could influence God’s acts is unthinkable. Men cannot interfere with God. However, the acceptance of the consequence of God’s decision left individuals feeling very lonely, isolated and insecure.

 Telling devout believers that it was possible or impossible to attain entrance to heaven by way of good works, or by simply obeying the teachings of the church, is the crucial difference between Roman Catholics and Calvinist Protestants. According to Calvinist doctrines, there are no sacramental charms for receiving the grace of God. Therefore they abolished confession. But confessions made life easier for Catholics. Anonymously confessing your sins to priest hidden in closet who would absolve them after perfunctorily saying a number of prayers and hail Marys. Instead of offering relief, Calvinist ministers of the church preached that all believers were born sinners, walking the broad road to hell, for being unable to resist the forbidden temptations that life was offering each day.[41] They could not amend their moments of weakness with ‘good works’. According to John Calvin, God does not accept ‘a few good works’. He demands a continuous commitment to work, and a continuous avoidance of sinful activities, in particular activities related to vanity and lustful desires of the human body.

 The very parsons that were preaching hell and doom also had to face the enormous worries of their parishioners about an eternal and excruciating painful life in hell. Something had to restore the balance. Though believers could not do anything to change God plans, they could start looking for signs that might indicate that they belonged to the very small group of chosen people that would go to heaven. At least, that is how the clergymen presented it to them. The local ministers gave them the following two pieces of advice:

• It is the duty of all believers to see oneself as chosen. Doubting that is a sure sign of insufficient belief.
• To gain trust in God believers were advised to work hard from daw till dusk. This, and only this, could take away feelings of doubt and support the reliance on God.

By fulfilling God’s commands, through working hard and living ascetically, and by developing your God-given talents, Christians could contribute to the glory of God. They can become convinced that they are chosen to the degree that they can manifest God’s glory through their diligence and the wealth they had earned through hard work and the use of their talent for doing business and their skills as entrepreneur. Thus, the Protestant capitalist believed that there is nothing wrong by enriching himself, as long as this is not a goal in itself, but a manner of serving God. Anyone endowed with a talent for doing business, is obliged to do business as best as he can, for it is God that has given you your talents and created all opportunities for doing profitable business.

5.5.2 Inner-worldly ascetics

Weber used the works of Richard Baxter to shed more light on the main principles underlying Puritan Protestantism. Baxter’s books not only gave a clear description of the ascetic ethos, but also an unequivocal prescription for a frugal lifestyle.[42] These texts reveal some striking similarities with those of Benjamin Franklin. Whereas Franklin had argued that time is money, Baxter stressed that squandering time is sinful. In view of eternity, our time on earth is short. So, we must use this short span of time as well as we can.

 Weber pointed out that the awareness of the fact that man’s life on earth is short already played a major role in religious life, long before the advent of modern capitalism. For centuries, the motto of the Church of Rome had been: ora et labora, pray and work. To remind people of the quick passing of time, bells were tolled for each hour of the day. Among Catholics the ascetic lifestyle had become a matter for monks. They had retired from worldly affairs to sever themselves from their family, their earthly possessions, and to abstain from indulging earthly passions such as sex. This forms an example of outer-worldly ascesis. In a way, the Protestant reformation turned all believers into ascetic monks. All believers had to live a sober life and to refrain from worldly passions. Weber called this a form of inner-worldly ascesis. For Baxter, wealth could be dangerous. It could lead to laziness and a weakening of morals. One should not be tempted to a life of leisure. One should devote one’s whole life to work in the service of God. It is in moments of idleness that people are tempted to engage in what Puritans call ‘an unclean life’. Working hard is a safeguard against sin and offers an opportunity to use one’s talents to the fullest. In itself, there is no objection to wealth, but people should be warned of the danger that great wealth brings. It can tempt people to sinful leisure activities. So, also rich people are advised to continue working and not to retire early. It is with some hesitance that Baxter allows them to avoid disagreeable chores and to opt for more agreeable tasks. For all, the central message is: work, work, and work. Idleness is a great source of evil. Squandering time is a disgrace to God. Only the seventh day of the week is a day of rest. Sunday should be used to honour God by studying the Bible, going to church, and singing hymns; not a day for profane pleasures and relaxation.

5.5.3         Unintended consequences of the Protestant ethic

By now, it is clear why the Protestant ethic stimulated the growth of capitalism.

          “… (It) must have been the most powerful lever for the expansion of an attitude which we have described as the spirit of capitalism.”[43]

It is only a small step from calling the squandering of time sinful, to minimizing the squandering of time for higher production and greater profits. It is only a small step from the idea that work is good for the glory of God to the idea that work that is planned and carried out well is even better. Thus instrumental rationality becomes even more highly valued. This produced an extra impulse for the expansion of modern capitalism.

 Weber puts great emphasis on the idea that the well-intended actions of people can produce unintended consequences. They can give rise to new social structures and new attitudes and opinions. They can have repercussions for the future. After having sketched the important role of Puritanism for the growth of capitalism, he observed that structure and cultural acceptance of modern capitalism had become so strong that it could expand further in times of secularization. 

 Visiting the United States, Weber noted that the economic success of Protestant sects validated his theory. As soon as the idea had taken root that members of a particular sect were highly reliable in economic affairs, because of their willingness to work hard, their sober way of life, and strong social control, increasing numbers of people started doing business with them.[44] Therefore, when the ethos of Puritanism leads to economic profit, this will also create the image that members of Puritan sects have a special talent for doing business. This image will lead to even more economic success. This process played a major role in the United States, in particular with respect to the Quakers and Mennonites. Businessmen who were not members of one of those sects, could not profit from this positive image of reliability: a reliability that was enhanced by the widely known fact that if a member of the sect failed to fulfil his obligations, other members of the sect would guarantee that the client would be compensated for any financial losses.

5.5.4 Testing the thesis

To test his theory, Weber had to make clear why there was no similar connection between economic growth and the ethos of other world religions.  He started with the question of whether there existed an equivalent of the worldly asceticism of Protestantism within Confucianism of China, the Buddhism and Hinduism of India, and Ancient Jewry. During Weber’s lifetime, modern capitalism had not emerged outside the Western world. If modern capitalism was a uniquely Western affair.

 Confucians view the world in which they live as the normal and only justifiable order of social existence, as created by higher, cosmic powers. Hence, the goals of life and lifestyle have been determined a very long time ago. From that perspective, it is unwise to change your way of life and to strive for new goals. All that is needed is to take care that life forever remains the same. Within this cultural context, traditional behaviour is rational. To Confucians the Protestant Ethic which urges people to produce and to earn as much as they can is completely irrational.[45]

 In India, the belief in reincarnation vigorously precluded the will to improve one’s living conditions. Hindus believe that their soul, if they behave well, will return in the body of person that is more privileged. This doctrine robs poor Hindus of the motivation to search for a way out of their misery during their life. The caste system enhances conservatism. No one can escape the caste into which one is born. Both stabilizing elements hang together. The caste system could not have survived the ages if it had lacked the support of a strong belief in reincarnation, for only via reincarnation one could hope to become a member of higher caste.

 Weber could not find the time or muster the energy to perform an in-depth study of the relationship between Islam and its economic ethics. In Economy and Society, he devoted only a few pages to the Muslim world. He noted that soon after the death of the prophet, Islam developed into an Arabic warrior religion led by powerful families that aimed at raising this faith to a master religion, to which members of other religions had to pay tribute. The role played by wealth is diametrically opposed to the role played by wealth in the Puritan Christianity. Muhammad once stated: “When God blesses a man with prosperity he likes to the see the signs thereof visible upon him.”  The prophet rejected every type of monasticism (rahbaniya), though not all asceticism, for he forbade eating and drinking by day during the yearly month of fasting. Even this month of fasting during daytime, did not set people on the track of a permanent frugal lifestyle that could lead to a steady accumulation of money and increased financial investments in entrepreneurial endeavours. Moreover, Weber thought that the prohibition of demanding (high) interest rates and the restriction against gambling had important consequences for their attitudes toward speculative business enterprises. Another important factor was that the strong belief in providence easily turned into fatalism. In the period that the Protestant ethic supported the development of capitalism, the Islamic world was still organized in a truly feudal fashion that fully accepted slavery, serfdom, and polygamy. In the past traditional interpretations of the Qur’an barred women from good education and occupational careers, wasting a good deal of the talent of half their population. We note that Weber has given only a few hints on why the majority of the Islamic world, presently more than 1,9 billion people, lives in poverty. There are only a few Muslim countries with an average income that is very high. These exceptions to the rule profit from huge oil reserves. However, in countries like Saudi Arabia the distribution of income is appalling, leaving large parts of the population in dire straits, while the elite squanders hundreds of millions and has stashed more than one trillion dollars in the USA.[46] To explain why many Muslim countries are doing poorly, Zanfar Bangash points to a lack of good leadership:

“The first and foremost requirement for any society to make progress is the emergence of sincere leadership in society. Islam describes this as muttaqi (sincere, committed and honest) leadership that operates above personal, class or group interests. The responsibility of such leadership is to set a directional course and then motivate, inspire and guide people toward achieving it. When the collective energies of a large number of even ordinary people are harnessed for the achievement of a pre-set goal, the results are often truly astounding. Even non-Muslims will achieve these results.”

However, Zanfar Bangash asserts that many Muslim political leaders are doing the opposite of what they should do, and what they ought to as good Muslims. Corruption is rampant. State’s resources are treated as family fortune and used and abused at will. This is what is happening in almost all the countries of the Muslim world. The elites live a rapacious lifestyle, indulging in worldly pleasures, while the masses languish in poverty and misery. I find it refreshing that Zanfar Bangash points to internal cultural and religious factors that could be addressed for lifting millions of people out of poverty, especially in those countries that earn billions of dollars a year just by pumping up and selling crude oil. Of course, good leadership and a redistribution of incomes will not solve all problems, but it would mean a huge step forward.    

5.5.5          Critique and counter-critique

An important line of criticism stated that the essence of the Protestant Ethic, its inner-worldly austerity and asceticism, could be observed in other religions too. Other critics state that a fair share of Protestants did not abstain from the pleasures of life. It is well-known fact that many Puritans, after becoming rich, began to indulge themselves in worldly pleasures. However, none of these remarks can alter the fact that in recent history Protestants have fared better than Catholics. As a social scientist, Weber did not intend to prove that all Protestants continuously obeyed the rules of a Puritanical lifestyle, but that the puritan ethos of Protestants, wherever it prevailed, fit well with the spirit of capitalism, and thus, on average, resulted in greater wealth among Protestants than among Catholics.

 Werner Sombart was the main critic of Weber during the latter’s life. He launched three points of critique. First, Catholicism, in general, tended to further the growth of capitalism, instead of blocking it. To Sombart, Benjamin Franklin’s recommendations were a literal repetition of the writings of the Renaissance philosopher Leon Albert. Weber countered that Albert’s writings were aimed at the residents of monasteries.[47] Further, Sombart suggested that the doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church, as formulated by Thomas of Aquinas in the 14^th century, already preached the gospel of Reason: “Reason steers the universe, and has to regulate and control human passions and temptations.” It is here, rather than in Calvinism, that we must localize the start of the transformation from traditional to modern society. It was this doctrine that robbed medieval men of their traditional roots and passions, and replaced their primitive outlook on the world within a more rational view. Humans were advised to make better of use their intelligence. It was Thomistic philosophy that stimulated a methodically developed economy and condemned laziness and avarice. The condemnation of stinginess referred only to the hoarding of money and not to the lending of money in a profitable manner. Yet, this critique does not refute Weber’s thesis; it only points out that the roots of rational and ascetic thinking had already begun before the Protestant Reformation. Sombart did not prove that this mindset was shared by the majority of Catholics, nor that boosted the economy. His main criticism is that Calvin’s doctrine rejected capitalism, for capitalism was focused on mundane affairs. Weber agreed with Sombart that Protestantism, particularly the Puritanical strand, had anti-capitalistic strains. One can easily find anti-capitalistic paragraphs in the writings of the Puritans. But the point is that the strong emphasis on working long hours and not spending your earnings on luxury items and profane pleasures offered a strong impetus for the capitalist growth. As a sociologist, Weber was not interested in the precise content of Calvin’s doctrines, but – and here he shows himself as a true and gifted social scientist – in the way in which the believers interpreted these doctrines and acted upon them in their daily life. In response to such critics as Sombart and Brentano, Weber stressed that he was interested in:

“… the influence of those psychological sanctions which, originating in religious belief and the practice of religion, gave a direction to practical conduct and held the individual to it … This is to speak frankly, the point of the whole essay, which I had not expected to find so completely overlooked.”[48]

Protestantism did not create capitalism, but it stimulated its development. The work ethics of the Puritan Calvinists formed a perfect match with the spirit of capitalism. But, as soon as capitalism gained enough momentum, it pushed ever more groups of people towards a typical capitalist mind-set and a strong work ethos. This helped to stimulate production and economic growth to such a degree that the expansion simply went on and on, even after many people turned their backs to religion, in particular to Christian beliefs.

5.6   Weber’s political sociology: rationalisation of government

In whatever way a nation, business or organization is led, they all need an authority structure. There is a need for a legitimate order, an order that is acceptable and transparent to all members. Weber defined power, as:

 “the likelihood that one actor within a social relationship will be in a position to carry out his will, despite resistance”.[49]

He defined authority or domination (Herrschaft) as “the probability that a command… will be obeyed by a given group of people.”[50] Zijderveld and others feel that the concept of authority also is applicable to authority derived from public opinion and professional expertise.[51] To Weber, the concept should be restricted to a narrow terrain. Authority is a form of power to which people feel themselves obliged to obey. It implies discipline and habituation, especially in the army, but not only there, so that everyone is prepared to follow orders from superiors promptly, without questioning. Power can be very short-lived, but authority assumes a certain degree of continuation. Therefore, it gives rise to a high degree of predictability in organizations. It enhances uniform patterns of behaviour. Thus, in comparison to a one-off occurrence of power in the hands of a particular person, it creates added value.[52]

 Weber distinguished between the following ideal types of authority: traditional, charismatic and rational-legal. For traditional leaders the main source of their authority is the continuation of old traditions. Charismatic leaders can expect obedience because they claim to change the lives of their followers in a favourable manner. Secular leaders promise improvement here, now, or in the near future. Hereafter. Religious leaders promise a better existence in the here-after. Legal-rational authorities can claim obedience on the basis of their position in the organization, a position that they have achieved legally, based on education, experience and expertise. Furthermore, official rules of the organization make clear when a superior can legitimately expect his or her orders to be obeyed.[53]

Whereas Marx focuses on one-dimensional power relations, Weber, like Simmel, also sheds light on the interactive character of power and authority relations. Often, it is not a matter of simply being subjected to the exigencies of power, but also a matter of acceptance. Thus, the effectiveness of power becomes greater. It is likely that the same is true of social stability. After all, when order has to be maintained by force and the threat of force, the dominator must continuously be aware and alert that a rebellions might erupt.

5.6.1         Traditional authority

In pre-modern societies, a form of authority prevailed based on ‘sacred’ traditions, created by revered ancestors. Authorities within pre-modern tribes inherited their powers of authority from their fathers. It drew its legitimacy from these origins. In the Arabic world, for instance, many Muslim leaders claim authority and respect on the basis of direct lineage from The Prophet. Leaders of small tribal societies did not have a staff of specialized personnel. They executed their power directly. In most cases they were experienced, elderly people of whom it was assumed that they knew best how to act in different situations, especially situations connected with old traditions. Within the realm of the extended family, the power tended to lie in the hands of a patriarch. In modern societies, such traditional forms of domination are hard to find. In democratic kingdoms, the function of a monarch is mainly symbolic.

 Traditional authority has two characteristic features. Its legitimacy is based on relations of domination that have been regulated long, very long ago. In those days, nobody looked for another type of justification. There had always been a certain hierarchical division of society. The leader and his advisors always stood in opposition to the people with a much lower status. There was no doubt whatsoever who occupied powerful positions. Moreover, traditional authorities did not acknowledge a distinction between the public and the private domain. They had power over their subjects, including their subject’s private property. Because of this lack of demarcation between public and private, subjects had to be loyal to not only the leader but also to his close relatives. Thus, a legitimised hierarchical order appeared based on inherited power and privileges.[54]

5.6.2         Charismatic leadership

Charisma is a creative, driving force that breaks through long-established rules. Charismatic authority rests on the exceptional characteristics of particular leaders. Followers accept all the demands and desires of the leader and consider them to be authentic and justified. Thus, they go beyond the direct interest of merely following the rules of the existing social order. We can encounter charismatic leaders in a variety of organizations. World history has produced famous charismatic leaders that have changed whole religions and civilizations; in this respect, we can mention Buddha, Jesus and Muhammad. On a smaller scale, we can find exceptional school leaders, founders of businesses, or national politicians with charismatic qualities. In the case of religious sects, the charismatic leader succeeds in attracting a group of intimate followers who receive some of the charisma of their leader. In this way, the leader and his inner circle of intimate followers steer the whole organization. Usually, sectarian leaders create a series of obligations that must be fulfilled. Apart from the leader, who stands head and shoulders above the rest, the sect does not have a clear hierarchy. By chance, any follower can suddenly become a highly respected member of the inner circle of the leader. On the other hand, each member that has a close relation with the leader can fall out of grace and lose his privileged position overnight.[55]

 Charisma is a specific trait of personality. Apparently, charismatic people are endowed with supernatural or at least extraordinary forces and qualities. It is of no importance whether these exceptional traits really exist. The only thing that matters is that a group of individuals believe that the leader possesses specific qualities, such as penetrating eyes. Other characteristics are far less crucial, but can become important extras, such as great oratory talents, outspoken courage or a manifestation of great devotion and high ethical standards. Since charismatic authority is based on the personal impression that the leader exerts on his followers, it has an arbitrary and maverick quality. This creates a potential danger for normal organizations and rational forms of authority. Horrific examples of charismatic leadership from recent world history are Joseph Stalin and Adolf Hitler. They abused their charismatic leadership which lead to the death of millions of people. History has also produced very positive charismatic leaders such as Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King and Nelson Mandela.

 Purely charismatic leadership can play a positive role during periods of social change and innovation. As soon as the period of turbulence has ebbed away and the social system has stabilized, the need arises to be governed in a highly predictable and regularized mode. In the long run, individualistic, eccentric and arbitrary acts of leadership will harm social systems to the degree that they fall part. Stable systems need a high degree of conservatism, predictability and rational leadership.

5.6.3         Rational-legal authority

Modern authority tends to be based on rational grounds and is embedded in impersonal rules that are legally established or agreed by contract. Thus lord-mayors, secretaries of state, police inspectors, headmasters and managing directors of business organizations possess rational legal authority. They derive their authority from their professional position.

          “In the case of legal authority, obedience is owed to the legally established impersonal order. It extends to the person exercising the authority of office by virtue of the formal legality of their commands and only within the scope of authority of the office. … the person who obeys authority does so, … only in his capacity as a ‘member’ of the organization and what he obeys is only ‘the law’.”[56]

In general, employees have no personal bond with their superiors. They follow their directions and commands within the sphere of the job only. Legal authorities are subjected to an impersonal order. Their behaviour and style of management has to fit this order. Many headmasters, police officers and prime ministers have charisma. Charisma can increase their authority and endow them with greater influence over people.

5.7   Bureaucracy

Bureaucracies belong to a new historical period, an era in which formal organization prevails over informal organizations and doing business. The ideal-type of bureaucracy is based on purely rational principles such as the application of standardized rules. Its functionaries apply these rules to all cases in the same neutral way. Each incumbent holds a clearly defined position with clearly defined tasks and responsibilities. The formal structure of the organization makes clear who should give specific orders to whom and who has to obey which superiors. Key concepts are subordination, discipline and formal rationality, standardization, formalisation, depersonalisation and specialisation.

 Weber described bureaucratic management as the exertion of control on the basis of expertise and cognition. Bureaucratic organizations need special  knowledge for their administrative and managerial tasks. New knowledge about the efficiency of organisational procedures will be accumulated during routine on-the-job experiences. This new knowledge is used to expand the power base of the bureaucracy. Thus, the operational domain of bureaucratic control is ever expanding, hence citizens will be subjected to ever-growing bureaucratic organizations. This tendency is an unavoidable consequence of the demands of industrial production, which creates ever-growing units of production in order to produce mass goods efficiently. This tendency leads to ever growing irritation. People demand politicians to cut down the number of rules, and the number of people interfering with the decisions of citizens.

Weber did not invent the concept of bureaucracy. Nineteenth century novelists like Nicolai Gogol, Honoré de Balzac and Charles Dickens had satirized the slow and cumbersome workings of bureaucratic civil servants. Weber’s achievement was to identify bureaucratisation as a major trend in modern society and to define it as a generic type of social organization. Organizational sociologists took his model as point of departure for the empirical study and theoretical analysis of a huge variety of special-purpose organizations such as government agencies, factories, hospitals, custodial institutions and the like.[57] In Wolfgang Mommsen’s view, it is not surprising that some of them found that Weber’s concept of bureaucracy – in so far as it overemphasizes the role of subordination, discipline and formal rationality – does not altogether fit the reality of many present-day bureaucracies. But Weber deliberately designed an ideal type of bureaucracy to serve as a yardstick for the comparative study of organizations. Comparisons with the character, size and expansion of organizations in the past and the present could be used to ascertain in exact terms the tremendous impact of bureaucracies on individual citizens and all kinds of organizations.[58] Standardized could streamline all kinds of processes, but in reality, more bureaucratic procedures created a significant slow-down of decision making and implementation. Weber noticed that the higher the degree of formalization and depersonalisation, the more societies become an iron cage for their members.[59]

From the perspective of accountability, achievement and usability, the ideal type of bureaucratic management is the most rational form of exercising authority and getting things done in a fair and transparent way. However, real bureaucracies tend to require a lot of manpower and time to warrant that everything proceeds according to the existing overload of rules and regulations that hamper the proper functioning of the bureaucracy and the smooth implementation of new policies, inciting much irritation and disappointment in political authorities. Such excrescences have given real bureaucracies a bad name. Nowadays, they tend to be depicted as organizations that produce ‘red tape’ and offer easy jobs to civil servants who unduly profit from the hard-earned money of innocent taxpayers. Too much of this critique seems right. Another reason for counter-productivity is rooted in the conflicting rules produced by different governmental bureaucracies as solutions to quite different problems. A notorious British Health and Safety example is the rule that demands that kitchen floors of restaurants must be as smooth as possible for hygienic reasons; whereas another rule, issued by another ministry, demands that these floors must have a rough surface to prevent cooks from falling on a slippery surface. Yet, Weber argued that the decisive reason why bureaucratic organization has continued to expand has been its technical superiority over any other form of organization used in the past.

5.7.1 Characteristics of an ideal type bureaucracy

The staff and line of public bureaucracies have a position that ideal-typically has the following characteristics.

1. Civil servants are free citizens; they have to obey the rules and execute the duties connected with their official function.
2. They form part of a fixed hierarchy.
3. They have fixed jurisdictional competencies.
4. They assume their position as civil servant on the basis of free choice and agreement;
5. They are appointed, not elected.
6. They are appointed on the basis of competency; preferably, this competency is acquired through formal education and the attainment of certificates.
7. They receive a fixed salary that corresponds with their hierarchical position and status
8. They carry out their office as their only profession.
9. They make a career for themselves within the civil service and are promoted on the basis of seniority and/or achievement.
10. Official work is entirely separated from ownership of the means of administration and without appropriation of this position.
11. During their official activities, they are subjected to strict, uniformal discipline and control.[60]

To Weber, further bureaucratisation is unavoidable. It forms an important part of the general trend towards increasing rationalization, towards a greater control over society, nature and our health. Modernization leads to a greater demand of knowledge and an increase of specialization. Governments attempt to gain greater control over society with the help of bureaucracies, specialists, and more rules and regulations. Increased complexity of government policies demand ever more standardization of decision rules. Weber expected that  the growing demand for specialists would lead to an expansion of education and subsequently to a decrease in distance between social classes. Increased specialization requires an expansion of higher education. In turn this will lead to more lower class students attaining higher levels of education and getting higher status jobs. In this respect history has proved him right. He foresaw that bureaucracies would foster an impersonal, formalistic attitude. Maybe this was true in his day and age, but in most western countries social contacts, inside and outside organizations, have become more informal. Weber feared that the expansion and growing influence of bureaucratic organization, with its unavoidable use of predetermined categories, would depersonalize individuals into entities that tick a restricted and precooked set of boxes. This might be so when humans are being treated by administrative bureaucracies, but humans are creative and have many means of keeping their human personality intact .  

5.8   Social action and social order

Economy and Society is considered to be Weber’s main work. This treatise on general sociology published after his death. It consists of texts on sociology of law, economics, politics and religion. He tried to elicit sociological insights through a unique system of concepts.[61] Social action is ‘social’ insofar as its subjective meaning takes account of the behaviour of others.[62] Such social actions can lead to the emergence of social relationships. The content of a social relationship can be wide-ranging – it can be conflict as well as loyalty, hostility as well as friendship. Moreover, the relationship itself need not be ‘symmetrical’; even if the parties involved assign different meanings to their actions the relationship can work. In general, social relationships point to a repeated recurrence of behaviour. Nevertheless, the recurrence of a particular action that fits a specific social relationship always depends on chance. With humans, one can never be sure of a specific action; no matter how many times this action has occurred in the past. At any moment, one can end or change a relation and start a relation with someone else. According to Weber, the fact that social relationships consist of past, present and future ‘probabilities of action’ warns us against the danger of reifying society as wholes that are endowed with that which only individuals have: a sense-giving goal-oriented will.[63] Individuals always determine their personal goals or adjust their goals in view of changing meanings they attach to their lives and the social events that occur in their immediate environment. Awareness of these probabilities should preserve us from looking at society as a monolithic whole, as a coherent unit that determines the acts of all individuals, as if this social whole possesses a will of its own.

 As methodologist, Weber does not favour a sociology that reifies society in a concrete acting and goal-oriented entity. For Weber, real people form the units that cause everything that happens in society. He does not accept reified abstractions such as ‘Society’ or ‘The World Spirit’ that occupied the minds of so many German philosophers of the 19^th century. We never see society as such, but only individuals or groups of individuals. These groups differ to such a degree that Weber thought it nonsense that the majority of civil servants, shopkeepers and labourers would share the worldview of the elite. Likewise, he found it inappropriate to summarize India by referring to the caste of Brahmins or Germany by referring to the philosophy of Hegel. The only way to understand societies is to start analysing the great diversity of groups and subcultures, as they exist in reality, the forces that bring them about and help them survive and the forces that regulate their mutual relations and determine their place in society.[64]

 In spite of Weber’s strong emphasis on methodological individualism in interpreting social processes and structures and in spite of his observation that social life is characterized by ubiquitous conflicts, he never viewed social life as an endless stream of solitary acts and events. As a sociologist, he was primarily interested in the orchestrated, communal behaviour of people and their shared opinions, norms and values. He was not interested in the thoughts and drives of singular individuals. His main focus was the emergence and reproduction of patterns of behaviour, that is, structures of social action that are repeated time and again by groups of people because they share the subjective meaning of these patterns of behaviour.[65]

 Despite his strong emphasis on the actions of individuals, Weber seems to focus solely on collectives. Discussing collectives subjective meanings of individuals seem to disappear beyond the theoretical horizon. This occurs to such a degree that many readers tend to overlook his methodological individualism and his method of interpretive understanding. This has given rise to a debate on a possible gap between Weber’s methodology and his substantive sociology.[66] Yet, he always described structured and meaningful goals for social action of individuals, that is, ideal-types of specific categories of individuals. He discussed the motives and actions of the ideal-typical Calvinist, the charismatic leader, or the civil servant. Such pure types denote sets of uniform orientations, such as the ascetic lifestyle, the heroism or capriciousness of the leader and the reliability, loyalty and punctuality of the civil servant. All of his pure types are focused on meaningful social actions. Mapping meaningful actions through ideal types leads Weber away from an analysis of isolated orientations.

• The establishment of social order

The explicit connection between social action (agency) and social structure is brought about by specific modes of institutionalisation. A social order can arise through a series of uniform social actions, which Weber calls social usage (Brauch). Social usages can come and go, like fads and fashions. Whenever usage rests on long standing traditions it constitutes custom (Sitte). Certain customs can become so familiar that they become second nature. Then people will enact them without thinking. Uniform action may also constitute a form of social order when ‘determined by the exploitation of a situation that is in the self-interest of a powerful actor or a group of actors.’ Finally, action can exhibit uniformity in virtue of its being regarded as morally mandatory by the actors. In that case, we speak of a convention that is a form of usage, which is recognized by many actors as binding and is protected from violation by sanctions of disapproval.[67]

 What happens if people deviate from historically established customs and conventions? Depending on the type and degree of deviation, the majority of the group will exert some pressure on the deviant person. The community develops a legitimate order or system of social control and negative sanctions. That control can be laid down in conventions or laws. We speak of a convention when law establishes nothing, but there is a collective need that disapproval must be displayed towards certain forms of behaviour. If needed, leaders can establish laws that forbid certain types of behaviour, types that are vigorously rejected by large parts of society. These laws also state which type or degree of punishment will be given to perpetrators. Conventions and formal laws exist only by the grace of the exertion of punishment.[68] A social order becomes a legitimate order when most group members become convinced that this order is useful and acceptable. The larger the number of people imbued with this conviction and acting on it, the larger the legitimacy of that order. A legitimate order can be safeguarded in two ways: from within, that is, voluntarily, or from without, that is, with the help of coercion. In general, individuals can opt for the acceptance and obedience to socially instituted rules on the basis of:

1       emotional grounds;

2        value rationality determined by a belief in the absolute validity of this order as a manifestation of some ultimate ethical value;

3        a religious belief that salvation of one’s soul depends on obedience to that order.

The other perspective is based on the fear of negative sanctions. These sanctions can consist of general but informal expressions of disapproval. In case of the transgression of official laws, society will activate a whole system of professionals who have to treat these trespassers severely but justly. If caught and found guilty they will be fined or imprisoned for a specific period of time.[69]

 Weber’s theory of social action contains a very fluid element. The expectations that persons have of each other are not fixed or nicely tuned to each other’s wavelength. While one might think that the relationship is built on a true and long lasting friendship, the other could see it as superficial and sort-lived and will end it as soon as it is no longer in his or her personal interest. The main point for a functional relationship is that it satisfies both participants. The reason for starting a relationship may differ from the reasons for maintaining it. A friendly initiative can shift into a purely economic affair or the other way around. In short, to Weber, social relations and institutions are but manifestations of patterns of interaction in which people attach meaning to each other’s actions. They originate and are maintained through patterns of communication, cooperation and mutual enjoyment. The social institutions emerging out of these interactions are not eternal. They are no transcendental ‘things’ that impose their will on people.

 When large groups of people cooperate with each other they can create nation-states. As this cooperation disintegrates, entire political states can fall apart. This became clear after the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989. It heralded the reunification of Germany, but also the demise of the Soviet Union and the emergence of new states and the re-emergence of former nation states. As soon as (political) ideas and convictions change, they also change the institutions resting on these ideas. (This is philosophical idealism in a nutshell.)

 In general, the redefinition and re-arrangement of geopolitical landscapes will not occur continuously or easily. It suffices to recall that the Soviet Union, the GDR and former Yugoslavia survived for decades despite continuous acts of resistance and criticism. Weber did acknowledge the transience of social institutions, but  not overrate them. Strong old and ossified structures, such as traditional norms, laws and conventions do not give way easily. On the one hand, there is the perspective of structuralism that emphasizes the stability of patterns of expectations that have existed for several generations and are being handed down to new generations. On the other hand, Weber gave a lot of attention to the potential for change that is inherent in social action, because patterns of social actions have to be carried out and reproduced by many individual members of society. So, in principle, each new generation can introduce some major institutional changes by undermining the ideas on which they were founded.

5.9   Inequality, cultural diversity and social cohesion

In Weber’s view economy, politics and culture determine the most striking features of the social structure. Social classes belong to the sphere of the economy, parties belong to the field of politics and estates are constituted on the basis of cultural criteria. Take for example a worker who sells his energy, time and skills to a factory owner. Both have different as well as shared interests. They might disagree on the fairness of the salary of the worker but both share an interest in the continuation of the economic organization, the factory that produces incomes for the workers, the manager and the owner.  They will not vote for the same party, but in times of war they work together in a national effort to defeat the enemy. In private life, they will live according to the lifestyle associated with their estate or social class. Everybody can see that individual behaviour has economic, political, as well as cultural aspects. These three domains determine the space in which we are expected to act. To a large extent, they influence our perspectives on individuals, groups and society.

 Weber saw conflict as an important form of social interaction. Conflicting parties are sharply focussed on the motives and actions of the other. During violent conflicts, political opponents continuously watch each other and calculate how the other party would act and react to their own actions. Weber is convinced that most conflicts arise from the human desire to impose one’s will upon others.[70] He broadened Marx’s one-dimensional model of stratification, based on the economic dimension only. He saw society as a complex whole of competing forces, in which groups are incessantly engaged in a struggle to improve their material, social and cultural position, to raise their status, prestige and power.

The history of mankind is a history of change, wars and conflicts, a history of development, growth and decline of empires and economies. Technologies come, blossom, and become obsolete to make place for new technologies. Yet, there will always be groups that succeed in bonding their members with shared opinions and communal feelings: families, tribes, churches, sects and circles of friends. Social associations are the basic building blocks of society. They bind people together on the basis of similar economic positions, political views, or lifestyles. Within these groups or associations, people develop their social identity, their values and their worldview. But even if people are born and raised within the same economic class or nation, they might grow up within different religious, ethnic and political spheres. In open societies one can witness men and women that will experience upward or downward social mobility.

 People who belong to the same class, will interact more frequently with each other than with members of other classes. There is a high probability that they will unite and establish voluntary or political organizations to achieve certain goals. The same is true of political positions, cultural origins and affinities.[71]  Weber stated that class position in itself does not lead to class-determined social or political actions. It is necessary to add the status group as a structural category and determining factor. People with similar jobs or income levels might follow different political leaders, adhere to a different faith, have different ethnic origins or vary in lifestyle.

 Social inequality is prominent characteristic of the human condition. It determines differential chances for biological survival, social status and economic fortune. What is at stake is the dispositional power to attain control over opportunities and advantages, which are also desired by others. There is a strong tendency to monopolise this dispositional power and to exclude others. This tendency is turned against outsiders who have been labelled as such, because of skin colour, religion, lifestyle, dialect or mother tongue, social origin or political affinity. Insiders attempt to exclude outsiders from highly desired goods, services and opportunities.

 Weber argued that the economy and the polity do not suffice to explain social stratification. Also cultural and religious differences create social barriers between people. Furthermore, social status or estate strongly exert a great deal of influence determining with which groups individuals will associate, or wish to be associated with said individuals. Status groups are bound together by notions of the right lifestyle. This is closely related to the avoidance of people belonging to a lower estate and class. They are viewed as inferior. Higher status groups can only exist if their members are endowed with a high degree of prestige. Only then will a social barrier emerge between different estates, between ‘us’ and ‘them’.[72] Cultural and religious stratification tend to reinforce socio-economic stratification.

Weber observed that economic and political elites always strive to become the cultural elite as well. They want a legitimated support for their high incomes and other privileges. They pretend and want others to acknowledge that they have worked hard and have been endowed with above average intelligence, creativity and leadership skills. Even aggressive and successful warlords want respect of legitimate kings, or to be crowned by the pope.

 Weber hypothesized that there is strong tendency to make positions within the three structural dimensions more congruent, especially during periods of social stability. It is then that the new rich and the new mighty do their best to lift themselves to a higher cultural level and to cover their humble social origin.

 In general, there is a close statistical connection between people’s income and social status, but through an ongoing social dynamic in modern societies, which are more open than traditional societies; the connection between these dimensions will never be perfect. Though certain lifestyles and patterns of consumption simply require a high level of income or capital, we can observe that people who have experienced a painful fall in income and financial reserves, will do all they can to hold on to their former status and the respect of their (former) peers. Noblesse obliges urges them to keep up appearances and to hide their relative poverty.

The importance of Weber’s more complex sketch of the social structure is that it makes us conscious of the fact that people do not always adjust their lifestyle to their new and more modest financial situation or economic occupation, but frequently go on acting as if nothing has changed and they still belong to their earlier estate. Such people will not always act in a rational manner and will tend to spend too much on products and services they no longer can afford. With the help of Weber’s more differentiated method of looking at social positions, it is possible to arrive at better explanations of human actions than would be possible with the help of Marx’s one-dimensional approach or a focus on instrumental-rational motives only. Dynamics of open societies produce double or triple loyalties. The need for a more pluralistic view on the social structure becomes even more apparent when we take ethnicity into account too.

5.10  Concluding remarks

Weber undertook an ingenious effort to develop a methodology that, on the one hand, suited the special demands of the social sciences as sciences that study social actions and the cultural patterns which emerge as a result of those actions and, on the other hand, still fulfilling scientific criteria set by the physical sciences. He argued that explanations of social phenomena must stand on two feet; on the study of objective social facts as well as on the subjective meaning that people attach to their own behaviour. Both play an important role in the explanation of social behaviour. His plea for the creation and testing of ideal types clearly shows that he realized that fruitful theorizing about societies, social groups and social processes can only be achieved if we construct concepts that focus on a relatively small set of variables of significant importance to the problem at hand. The only way to come to grips with a highly complex social reality is by foregrounding a few highly relevant aspects of the topic of study and thus deliberately neglecting other factors that are far less relevant.

 During his life Weber witnessed far-reaching social changes. To him rationalization was the most crucial one. He noticed signs of further rationalization in science, government and the economy. Rationality can have somewhat different meaning when it is used in different social contexts; all of these meanings centre round the core concepts of intelligent reasoning, increased control over nature, including control over human behaviour, and a growing level of efficiency within the economy and the government. Even within the domain of the Christian faith, one can detect a strong tendency towards demystification and rationalization. He feared that an unlimited intensification of rationalization would rob us from our freedom and individuality and lock us up in a steel cage. In particular, he feared negative side effects of increased standardization and over-regulation that go hand-in-hand with bureaucratisation and domination of goal-rationality.

 We sell Weber short by calling him a macro-sociologist or a micro-sociologist. His broad interests in a large variety of topics made him explore both specializations. Substantively, he has carried out many investigations of transformations in great civilizations and the sociological significance of world religions. As a methodologist, he stressed that the socially acting individual is the atom of social science. He does not fit in the paradigm of conflict sociology or in functionalist sociology. Was Weber a theorist who negated Marx’ theory of capitalism, or did he extend Marx’ theory by adding the religious factor as an important cause of the wealth of specific nations? Was he an agency theorist who ranked the meaningful actions of individuals higher than the impersonal mechanism of social systems? It appears that Weber has something to offer to different sociological paradigms. Hence, each sociologist reads him differently, according to his or her own theoretical preferences or political affinities.[73]

It is worthwhile to read Weber’s work more than once. With the help of a broadened frame of reference rereading Weber will mean discovering new valuable ideas.

This an updated and abbreviated version of chapter 5 of my book: Icons of Sociology. Boom Academic, Amsterdam 2007.

[1]

[1] H. H. Gerth & C. Wright Mills (1982) A Biographical View. In: From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology. Routledge Kegan Paul. London.

[2] D. Käsler (1988) Max Weber: An Introduction to his Life and Work. Cambridge: Polity Press, p. 4

[3] Christian Matthias Theodor Mommsen is generally regarded as the greatest classicist of the 19^th century. He received the Nobel Prize for Literature for his main work on Roman History.

[4] Marianne Weber (1926/1950): Max Weber: Ein Lebensbild. Heidelberg: Verlag Lambert Schneider. (Max Weber: A Biography)

[5] Idem, p. 10

[6] Idem p. 16; R. Collins (1986) Max Weber: Sage Publications; London, p. 14

[7] Idem, pp 33-35

[8] J.G Merquior (1980): Rousseau and Weber: Two Studies in the Theory of Legitimacy. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. (pp. 146-151).

[9] U. Eco (2001): Kant en het vogelbekdier. Amsterdam: Bert Bakker.

[10] M. Weber, Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Wissenschaftslehre. 1922. Weber frequently places the term nomological between inverted commas, to indicate that he does not mean invariant objective law-like relations, but so-called ‘general rules of experience’.

[11] M. Weber (1922): In: Gesammelte Aufsätze sur Wissenschaftslehre (p 175-179). Tübingen: J.C.B Mohr/Paul Siebeck.

[12] L. Scaff (1989): Fleeing the Iron Cage: Culture, Politics, and Modernity in the Thought of Max Weber. Berkeley: University of California Press.

[13] M. Weber (1922): Die Objektivität sozialwissenschaftlicher und sozial-politischer Erkenntnis. In GAW, o. c., p. 190

[14] Käsler, o. c., pp 183-184

[15] M. Weber (1992). Methodologie der Sozialwissenschaften. In: G. Ritzer (Ed.): Metatheorizing. Conceptual Standardization and the Future of Sociology. New York: Sage.

[16] Timothy Snyder (2017): On Tyranny: Twenty lessons from the Twentieth Century. New York: Crown. Steven Levitsky & Daniel Ziblatt (2018); How Democracies Die. New York: Roadway Books.

[17] M. Weber (1922): Soziologische Kategorienlehre, § 1. GAW.  Tübingen: J.C.B Mohr/Paul Siebbeck.

[18] M. Weber (1968): Economy & Society (p.22). New York: Bedminster Press.

[19] J.P. Verhoogt (1980): De wetenschapsopvatting en methodologie van Max Weber. In:  M. Goddijn (Red.), Max Weber. Zijn leven, werk en betekenis (pp. 69-73). Baarn: Ambo.

[20] R. Fletcher: o. c., p. 419-421.

[21] Merquior: o. c., p. 160

[22] To Weber Social phenomena were far too complex for simple one cause explanations.

[23] L.A. Coser: Masters of Sociological Thought. o. c.

[24] A.C. Zijderveld: o. c. p. 62

[25] Merquior: o. c., p 152

[26] M. Weber (1920-1921): Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Religionssoziologie I. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr/Paul Siebeck. p.1.

[27] M. Weber (1968): Economy and Society (p. 24-25). New York: Bedminster Press.

[28] J. H. Abraham (1973): Origins and Growth of Sociology (p. 268-269). Hammondsworth: Penguin Books.

[29] Timothy Snyder (2017): On Tyranny: Twenty Lessons from the Twentieth Century. New York: Crown

[30] D. Brubaker: o. c., p. 9.

[31] R. Collins: o. c., p. 65-69.

[32] GAR, o. c., p 4

[33] M. Weber (1974): The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (pp.54-55). London: Allan and Unwin.

[34] Economy and Society; o. c., pp 976-978

[35] M. Weber: General Economic History: o. c.:  p. 277.

[36] The word is taken from Goethe. Weber used the tern when he wanted to refer to a form of causality based on an affinity between and a natural matching of social phenomena or cultural features.

[37] M. Weber (1985): The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (p.60). London: Counterpoint, 1985.

[38] GAR: pp 31-32

[39] GAR: pp 33-34.

[40] When the first two humans God had created, Adam and Eve, wanted to eat fruit from the forbidden tree of knowledge of Good and Evil, He banned them from paradise. Genesis 3:6-7

[41] GAR, o. c., pp 114-115

[42] GAR, o. c. p 163 e.v.

[43] GAR, o. c., p. 192

[44] M. Weber (1920-1921): Die protestantische Sekten und der Geist der Kapitalismus, GAR, 207-237

[45] R. Aron: Main Currents in Sociological Thought. o. c.

[46] Zanfar Bangash: Impediments to development in the Muslim World. Creesecent.icit.digital.org. Rajab 11, 1433. Retrieved 5-5-2026.

[47] Ray refers to the English edition of the Protestant Ethic issued by Talcott Parsons.

[48] M. Weber (1974): The Protestant Ethic and the spirit of Capitalism. London: Unwin University Books.

[49] M. Weber (1968): Economy and Society, I, Chapter 1, section 16. New York: Bedminster Press

[50] Idem, p. 215

[51] A. C. Zijderveld (1985). De dynamiek van macht en gezag (p.25). ’s-Gravenhage: vuga.

[52] Merquior, o. c., p 25

[53] F. Parkin (1982): Max Weber. Chichester: Ellis Horwood Ltd.

[54] R. Fletcher, o. c., p 448

[55] Max Weber: Economy and Society, o. c., pp 242-245

[56] Idem: pp 215-217

[57] D.H. Wrong (1981): Max Weber and Contemporary Sociology. In Buford Rhea (Ed.), The Future of the Sociological Classics. London: George Allen & Unwin.

[58] W.J. Mommsen (1974). The Age of Bureaucracy: Perspectives on the Political Sociology of Max Weber (p. 19). New York: Harper & Row.

[59] In sociology the term ‘Iron cage’ has become the most widely used translation of Weber’s ‘Stahlhartes Gehäuse’, though steel case, steel jacket or steel box might have been more proper.

[60] Economy and Society: o. c., p 220

[61] Aron: o. c., p. 550

[62] Economy and Society: o. c., p. 4

[63] J.G. Melchior (1980): Rousseau and Weber. Two Studies in the Theory of Legitimacy (p.90). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul: London.

[64] Collins & Makowsky: o. c.

[65] Stephen Kalberg: Max Weber’s Comparative Historical Sociology (1994): Chicago: University of Chicago Press.  p. 30

[66] Idem, p. 31

[67] Economy and Society, pp 29-30

[68] Raymond Aron sees that Weber used a Durkheimian approach to defining deviancy here. Aron: o. c., pp. 551-552.

[70] R. Aron: o. c., p. 552

[71] Economy and Society; o. c., p 302

[72] L. A. Coser: o. c., p 229

[73] R. Collins (1986): Max Weber (p.10). London: Sage Publications.