Talk:Max Weber

Cities

His work on cities is not included here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.58.81.12 (talk) 05:24, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't appear to be a major focus of his work. It was one of the works published posthumously, see [1]. It doesn't seem to be mentioned in most generic summaries of his work. If you can think of a way to utilize this cite, please be bold and do so. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:22, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

His essay "Urbanization and Social Structure in the Ancient World" was considered important enough by the Weber scholar W.G. Runciman to be included in Weber: Selections in Translation (Trans. Eric Matthews, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978). In that essay, he discusses different class relationships that underlie city organizations in the Roman and Greek world, as compared to the medieval cities, and it is worth including because it is part of his attempt to falsify Marxism. He claims that the Middle Ages had a much more advanced development of capitalism that many historians admitted. Michael 06:29, 28 May 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikem1234 (talk • contribs)

Irrelevant information about other scholars criticizing socialism

This seems to be not about Weber, but about others building on his works. As such, this does not belong here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:23, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

To elaborate: I've read several intro texts on Weber, none of them mention critique of socialism as significant. This is something that may be relevant to articles about his specific works, or Max Weber on economy and such, but I don't think it is relevant here. Please show me an intro text on Weber that discusses his critique of socialism and I'll withdraw my objection. PS. Most of that content is also unreferenced; it also concerns what others said building on Weber's works, not what he said. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:58, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Disputed (irrelevand/undue) content:

---

In his capital work on sociological theory, Economy and Society (posthumously published in 1921-22), Weber elaborates on this point. Socialist intellectuals like Otto Neurath had realized that in a completely socialized economy money prices would not exist and central planners would have to resort to in-kind (rather than monetary) economic calculation. According to Weber, this type of coordination would be inefficient, especially because it would be incapable of solving the problem of imputation (i.e. of accurately determining the relative value of capital goods):

In order to make possible a rational utilization of the means of production, a system of in-kind accounting would have to determine "value"-indicators of some kind for the individual capital goods which could take over the role of the "prices" used in book valuation in modern business accounting. But it is not at all clear how such indicators could be established, and in particular, verified; whether, for instance, they should vary from one production unit to the next (on the basis of economic location), or whether they should be uniform for the entire economy, on the basis of "social utility," that is, of (present and future) consumption requirements? [...] Nothing is gained by assuming that, if only the problem of a non-monetary economy were seriously enough attacked, a suitable accounting method would be discovered or invented. The problem is fundamental to any kind of complete socialization. We cannot speak of a rational "planned economy" so long as in this decisive respect we have no instrument for elaborating a rational "plan".

This argument against socialism was taken up by Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek, of the Austrian school of economics, and became central to free market economics' intellectual assault on socialism in general. Hayek's argument that markets communicate efficiently through pricing and that this cannot be duplicated by central planning, won him the Nobel Prize in Economics for 1974.

Dear Piotrus: The text that you are objecting to was perfectly well referenced. All of the statements about what Weber himself says are supported by the texts that are then quoted from (the intro. to the Essays on the Sociology of Religion and ch. 2 of Economy and Society). It also seems relevant that this work is directly connected to a Nobel prize in economics (Friedrich Hayek's). It is true that this aspect of Weber's critique of socialism is not often emphasized in the sociology textbooks, but this seems no reason to me to leave it out here. Here are some non-technical discussions of Weber's role in the so-called "socialist calculation" debate: [2], [3], [4]. - Eb.hoop (talk) 05:22, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

The problem is several-fold. First, you referenced some parts with primary sources - Weber's words. Per WP:RS, we should be relying on secondary sources, and use quotes as an added illustration, not the primary source. This is, however, a minor issue, as I still see the primary one as relevance and due weight. Hundreds of books and thousands of articles have been written about Weber and his thought, and obviously we cannot put all the details here. How important is the critique of socialism to Weber's thought? As something not present in any of the intro texts I read, I believe it is only a minor tangent of his thought, and as such, not something that belongs to this article. Please note this is not a singling of socialism; Weber had written, or was used to discuss a myriad of concepts (consider such "big" words as Nazism or communism. Or that we devote barely a sentence to a much more clearly defined concept of life chances. You have still not proven that critique of socialism is major enough to deserve a separate section (mind you, in my shortened version the gist was still preserved in the economy section). Lastly, please keep in mind this is an article about Weber, not about what others have said based on his words. I don't see why Otto Neurath, Friedrich Hayek or Ludwig von Mises need to have their views described here. If they engaged with Weber, this is something to be discussed in theirs articles. In this one, we discuss Weber, and those theorists that inspired him. Of course, if there would be consensus among intro texts and such that Weber's inspiration of theorist X is crucial, we could mention it here - but I don't recall such a mention. Weber, obviously, has inspired hundreds if not thousands of others to engage with his work, and giving them a voice here is impractical. At best, we could have a sentence or two listing most important theorists inspired by Weber. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:13, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Dear Piotrus: I don't really see any reason not to include a few paragraphs, in the section about Weber as an economist, about work by Weber that has a direct bearing on a very important question in theoretical economics. In fact, this seems to me that part of Weber's original work that would be most recognizable as economics to a modern economist. Here's another secondary source that mentions Weber's work on the problem of economic calculation: Swedberg's Weber Dictionary. Notice also that this connects with preoccupations of Weber's that are discussed elsewhere in the article, especially about rationalization. It seems to me quite natural to mention Neurath, Mises, or Hayek, to the extent that their work is related to Weber's, in the same vein as we mention Kant, Nietzsche, or Habermas. Finally, let me point that that it wasn't I who originally put in the discussion of Weber's argument about the impossibility of socialist calculation. This article had included it for a long time before I began editing it. - Eb.hoop (talk) 05:22, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Economic calculation is not socialism. I am all for expanding the article further, but we don't need few paragraphs on Weber's critique of socialism, one should be enough - particularly when most of the current content comes not from "what Weber said about socialism" (which is what I kept in my shortened version) but what "others said about socialism after being inspired by Weber" (which I think is irrelevant and undue here). To enrich our discussion, I am going to ask for a 3O. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:04, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

But the point is that Weber did make the argument that economic calculation (which he and Sombart thought was an essential part of the rationalization of economic activity) was not possible under socialism because of the lack of money prices. Even if this is not usually emphasized in sociology textbooks, it is quite relevant to the history of economic thought in the 20th century. And this is independent of Weber's other substantial criticism of socialism, that it could work in practice only by establishing an increasingly rigid bureaucratic control of life, which was the opposite of the "withering away of the state" envisioned by Marx. - Eb.hoop (talk) 13:47, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

Eb.hoop makes reference to Weber's views on socialism having influenced the work of Friedrich Hayek. If this can be sourced, a compromise might be to include a brief subsection under Weber's legacy to reference that he influenced Hayek and Hayek's derivative work led to a Nobel Prize.—Pictureprovince (talk) 15:50, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

That's reasonable. Does it mean you agree that the excess information should be removed from the article as I suggest? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:03, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Before you go ahead and remove the quote from Economy and Society, let me remind you that this wasn't added by me. As far as I can tell, it was added by Ivanelo on 21 Apr. 2009, and the discussion around it was later revised by several other users. See: [5].

As for the reference to Weber's influence on Hayek, that seems to have been originally added by Kazvorpal on 23 Nov. 2010. The current version of the article provides two references to Hayek mentioning Weber's work on the economic calculation problem: a video interview and a chapter from one of his books. - Eb.hoop (talk) 17:03, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Who added doesn't really matter, what matters is whether we can find a consensus on how to make this the best possible article. If you both agree with the third option I've proposed, then that is a consensus and we can make changes to the article. Piotrus thinks the proposed compromise works, do you Eb.hoop? If yes, let's make it happen. If no, there is no consensus and if one cannot be found then we'll need to look at a more formal dispute resolution. - Pictureprovince (talk) 17:20, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that the quote from Economy & Society should be removed, as Piotrus wants. In fact, I see nothing wrong with how things stand at the moment with regard to this issue. And my reason for briging up the users who added it was to clarify that this is not my view against Piotrus's. Several other users, who have not weighed in, worked on the material that Piotrus wants removed or cut back. - Eb.hoop (talk) 17:29, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

As there is no agreement on the proposed third option, I would encourage you to take a look at your other dispute resolution options. - Pictureprovince (talk) 17:40, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I've made some edits to place the discussion in the broader context of Weber's preoccupation with economic calculation, and added references to secondary sources that discuss this. I hope this will ease some of Piotrus's concerns. - 20:03, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I guess it is time for an RfC. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:06, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Or maybe not, I think the new section is much better. However, I've added several cite requests. In particular, remember that per WP:RS, we should not interpret original sources other than in quotes, but rely on secondary ones. (I am not saying I always find that interpretation helpful, but it is the policy, so...). The first two cites are clear (end of sentence cites); the third one is for a source that clarifies that the quote that follows refers to "full socialism". I hope those cites will be easy to provide. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:12, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Dear Piotrus: I've added the secondary sources that you wanted, except for that third one. I think that the only reasonable interpretation possible of the quote is that it's referring to what would happen in a completely socialized economy without money prices. You could put in one of the secondary refs. there (Tribe, Cat, or Hulsmann), since they all make that point clear, but I think it would only confuse a reader as to what exactly is being referenced. - Eb.hoop (talk) 10:04, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you could rephrase the sentence so that it is clear? For example something like "Weber also discussed full socialism.[ref] He wrote: {quote}. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:49, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Influence on other economists

I'm somewhat puzzled by the qualms expressed by Piotrus, Binksternat, and others to referring in any detail to Weber's influence on other economists in the section about Economics. Weber thought he was primarily an economist and when he was a professor it was always in economics. But economics in Germany in his day focused on economic history and was entirely non-mathematical. Much of that work is now totally forgotten among economists, but Weber himself is an interesting case, because he broke with the other German historicists in very two important respects: by advocating methodological individualism and by accepting marginalism.

For historical reasons, Weber's influence was most obvious and direct on the economists of the so-called "Austrian School," especially Schumpeter, Mises, and Hayek, who, like the neoclassicals, embraced marginalism and methodological individualism, but, unlike the neoclassicals, remained largely non-mathematical. Weber did have a direct influence on one of the fathers of the neoclassical Chicago School, Frank Knight, who cared enough about Weber to translate his General Economic History into English.

None of this is original research, as the secondary references currently in the article should make clear. Nor is the point of mentioning those other economists to "hang a coat" on the Weber hook. It's simply to clarify the relation of Weber to modern economics. This is, I think, a very important issue for the article to treat. It only looks more complicated or controversial than it is because Weber today is read almost exclusively by sociologists and social philosophers, who tend to know little about modern economics. - Eb.hoop (talk) 16:40, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I took out your Frank Knight bit because it was only about him translating Weber, not about Weber's influence on his thought. If you find reliable sources to cite Knight being influenced by Weber, that information is appropriate for, say, the Legacy section. However, I would ask that this kind of expansion be saved for after the GA process.

A general note: if mainstream thought today puts Weber in the sociology box, then that is the article's main stance. Wikipedia ideally mirrors mainstream thought. We also make note of significant minor viewopoints, observing the proper weight of those viewpoints in relation to the mainstream. There is certainly room in the article to describe Weber's influence in economics. Binksternet (talk) 17:08, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I understand your concern and I agree that the focus of the article is rightly on the sociology. I've been concentrating on the economics because that's what I'm most familiar with and interested in. But let me insist that this is not about covering a non-mainstream or minority view. There are many books and articles written on the subject, some of them currently cited, and there's no significant disagreement on any of the points I've included. In other words, what I've added to the section about Economics is not in dispute or controversial. It's only that it comes from the economic and economic history literature, whereas the people who write surveys and encyclopedia articles about Weber tend to be sociologists or philosophers.

In any case, I'm now done with the edits to the Economics section. I think that the references to Knight et al. are better left under economics, where they are most meaningful and instructive, instead of jumbling them under Legacy at the end, but of course that should be decided by consensus.

About the GA process, I think that it's very useful to subject this article to review, but I feel that the nomination might have been premature. There are some substantive issues that still need to be addressed. The Legacy section as currently written, for example, is weak and unclear. Also, I think that someone who knows more of sociology than I should really add a thorough discussion of Weber's work on cities, which I think is in fact extremely important, contrary to what Piotrus said on this talk page some time ago. - Eb.hoop (talk) 09:18, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

A GA nomination can be concluded successfully even if the article has minor lapses in content. It is the FA nomination which would be halted in the presence of such lapses. Binksternet (talk) 13:14, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Racism

Numerous works by scholars touch upon Max Weber's racism and his passionate nationalism. This seems to be absent from the article for some reason. Such flaw of this article needs correction. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 16:21, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

The article mentions: "From 1893 to 1899 Weber was a member of the Alldeutscher Verband (Pan-German League), an organisation that campaigned against the influx of the Polish workers; the degree of Weber's support for the Germanisation of Poles and similar nationalist policies is still debated by modern scholars" and [early in the WWI] "he supported the nationalist rhetoric and the war effort, believing that the fight against the backward and despotic Russian Empire was justified and that a "liberal imperialism" along the lines of the British model would help Germany to develop a more mature political class". I am not sure if more is needed; if you can link to sources, please do so, but keep in mind this article cannot give undue weight to footnote arguments (those could be however developed in the Weber and German politics article). Bottom line, while I agree that this article should mention Weber's bias against Poles and his support for nationalist policies, I am not sure if it needs to be stressed more than now. I am also not convinced he was motivated by racial views, my reading indicates he was motivated by the desire for strong Germany, and his support for Germanization was based on generic "one culture = strong state" rather then "superior culture/superior race" Nazi argument. PS. The cited source ([6]) does seem to suggest we can word the critique of his attitude towards Polish more strongly, perhaps linking anti-Polish, but I'd strongly suggest against adding more than one sentence on that. PPS. The above source discusses the Polish question on pages 53-60, and again from page 211 to see in particular pages 55-56 for some arguments that he wasn't necessarily a racist, and then see page 59 for how he started supporting the Polish cause (or at least, opposing the opponents): he argued against the restriction of Polish language and against the expropriation of Polish landholdings, later he supported calls for greater autonomy for the Prussian Poles. In 1915 he even decided to learn Polish ([7]). As the ending para notes, Weber changed from the firebrand of the 1880s and 1890s to a compromiser on the issue of Prussian Poles. This was due to his recognition that a moderate/liberal nationalist policy was more efficient and more lilkely to create a strong German state. That said, early on he would much rather prefer an autonomous Polish region in Germany than an independent Poland, although page 212 suggest he realized that a solution like that of the Mitteleuropa may be necessary, hence formally independent, German-allied (and realistically German-dependent) Poland would be acceptable, or preferable (see also p. 224). In fact, later he actually preferred an semi-independent, Germany-allied Poland to keeping the territories partitioned (see p.220). Finally, p. 226 and 227 ((see also p. 226) note he was critical of the Regency Kingdom because he was it as as not sufficiently Polish and too much of a German puppet state to garner real support among the Poles, and thus not going far enough to create a lasting Polish-German alliance. This may make a worthwile addition to another article, but it is not likely of importance to this article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:02, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

But I am not talking about Poles :) I am talking about racism(which he expressed towards Poles also) in general. While no doubt Poles were part of that aspect, the racism expressed by Weber on numerous occassions is completely absent from this article. Also he was active politically in several nationalist parties and organizations-in addition to making political calls for continued war by Germans in 1918.This is also absent from the article. Plus they are inaccuracies in the text. Weber was-according to my sources member of Eastern Marches Society-this is something different from Pan-German League(although with similiar goals). Pan-German League existance was not primarily directed against influct of Polish workers-this was only a small part of its agenda-it was most of all nationalist and anti-semitic organization devoted to the idea of German imperalism, conquest of other nations, and Germanization of previous conquests. This should be corrected in the article.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 17:39, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

PS: I didn't noticed the article Weber and German politics-most of his anti-Polish agenda could be expanded there I suppose, but the main article should contain a section on his racism, as well as short description of nationalist involvement(that didn't just concentrate on Poles.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 17:43, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Dear MyMoloboaccount: If you have good secondary sources about Weber's alleged racism, please add them (or at least list them here, so that others may add them to the article). My own view is that the article in its current form accurately reflects Weber's views and how they evolved over time. He was never personally racist or anti-semitic. In fact, he was openly critical of anti-semitism in German academia and fought to support the careers of Jewish colleagues like Georg Simmel. Even otherwise critical commentators, like Arnaldo Momigliano, recognized that Weber's sympathetic understanding of Jewish rabbinical culture (as reflected in his book Ancient Judaism) was unique in all of German scholarship (see [8]). Weber was certainly a nationalist, but not the kind of nationalist that was appealing to the German right of his day. In the 1880s and 90s, he wrote that the German governing class was intellectually immature and advocated strengthening it along the lines of what he saw as better models in Britain and the US. He initially supported the German cause in World War I, especially against Russia, but as early as 1915 he became a strong critic of the Kaiser and his war policies, which he correctly saw were putting Germany permanently at odds with other Western powers and would eventually cause the US to join the war against Germany. His opposition to signing the Versailles Treaty had nothing to do with his desire to prolong the war, but rather to avoid a national humiliation which might have disastrous consequences down the road (as, in fact, it did). On this last point see, for instance [9], by W. J. Mommsen, the scholar principally responsible for modern attacks on Weber's nationalism. - Eb.hoop (talk) 18:26, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Andrew Zimmerman, assistant professor of history at the George Washington University writes "Weber made racism, moreover, a prominent element of his politics and scholarship" in "Alabama in Africa: Booker T. Washington, the German Empire, and the Globalization of the New South by Andrew Zimmerman, Princeton University Press 2010 , page 102.Further Page 103

Max Weber brought questions about race directly into discussions about German free labor, adding racial purity and raciam contamination to the long standing concerns in the Verein about free agricultural labor in the East. There are other examples included. But I think those are enough. And there are other books as well

The white racial frame: centuries of racial framing and counter-framing

Joe R. Feagin "a U.S. sociologist and social theorist who has conducted extensive research on racial and gender issues, especially in regard to the United States" writes: "like other social scientists, he held to the tenets of blatant biological racism, a view that infected his historical and geopolitical arguments,yet one that almost never gets critically discussed in the social science textbooks and empirical analyses that to this day use his important concepts. Weber wrote openly and unreflectively of the "hereditary hysteria" of Asian Indians, of Africans as genetically incapable of factory work, and of the Chinese as slow in intelligence and docile, with these latter traits viewed as significantly shaped by biology" The white racial frame: centuries of racial framing and counter-framing Joe R. Feagin, page 6

So scholars do note the issue of Max Weber's racism, and the fact that for long time unfortunately it was avoided in analysis of his work.However modern research no longer avoids this issue it seems, and we have numerous examples of Weber's racists thoughts.

--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:21, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Dear MyMoloboaccount: The two sources that you cite are do not reflect the mainstream scholarly understanding of Weber's work. Note that neither focuses on Weber, and that the latter, by Feagin, explicity challenges the mainstream by stating that Weber's supposedly racist view "almost never gets critically discussed in the social science textbooks."

Let me quote the only passage from Weber's work in which, as far as I know, he talks of possible biological or hereditary explanations for the differences between the economic arrangements of different cultures. Draw your own conclusions about whether this is evidence of racism:

Finally, we may make a reference to the anthropological side of the problem. When we find again and again that, even in departments of life apparently mutually independent, certain types of rationalization have developed in the Occident, and only there, it would be natural to suspect that the most important reason lay in differences of heredity. The author admits that he is inclined to think the importance of biological heredity very great. But in spite of the notable achievements of anthropological research, I see up to the present no way of exactly or even approximately measuring either the extent or, above all, the form of its influence on the development investigated here.

It must be one of the tasks of sociological and historical investigation first to analyse all the influences and causal relationships which can satisfactorily be explained in terms of reactions to environmental conditions. Only then, and when comparative racial neurology and psychology shall have progressed beyond their present and in many ways very promising beginnings, can we hope for even the probability of a satisfactory answer to that problem. In the meantime that condition seems to me not to exist, and an appeal to heredity would therefore involve a premature renunciation of the possibility of knowledge attainable now, and would shift the problem to factors (at present) still unknown.

-- Intro. to The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (1905)

- Eb.hoop (talk) 05:34, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I would just like to point out that discussion with the user called Molobo aka MyMoloboaccount can be a fruitless and most frustrating experience, as soon as Germans come into play (who generally seem to equal 'German nationalists', if not outright Nazis for that user). My own experience I gained (or rather, underwent, when trying to fix some POV issues in the Polish-German topics) is that the best thing to do would be to gather a consensus amongst constructive editors (the opinions of whom as a rule seem to concur), try to avoid feeding the troll and then just ignore the POV crusader. Whilst it's true that Weber initially supported the German war effort and may have exhibited nationalist views (but hey, this was a rule, rather than exception these days) - and Piotrus's post is helpful in this respect -, I think reducing Weber to a German nationalist and racist thinker is tantamount to summarizing Fyodor Tyutchev's importance as that of an anti-Polish scribbler or attempts at painting Konrad Adenauer, usually credited with establishing the democratic German state, as some closeted ultranationalist. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 12:48, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Needs a Bibliography

There is no bibliography of Max Weber's writings other than the sources scattered in the body and the notes section. I propose that this be changed as soon as possible so that people can immediately look at the bibliography rather than have to wade through the body text.Michael 06:22, 28 May 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikem1234 (talk • contribs)

Lead too long

I tagged the article as having too long a lead section, per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lead section) where it says no more than four paragraphs. The summary of Weber's life is complex—no doubt about that—but the main themes must be dealt with in four paragraphs, no more. Binksternet (talk) 03:51, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, let me take a stab a shortening it. - Eb.hoop (talk) 05:39, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Critical responses to Weber

Has there been any mention of South Germany and Austria to counter his hypothesis about protestants being the source of capitalism and economic success etc.? Baden-Württemberg is predominantly catholic, I believe, and Austria as well. They seem to do fine, right? BW does have many protestants (now), though. So, has this been used against Weber as well? 81.68.255.36 (talk) 09:46, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Critical responses: Related sources

• Arnot, Chris (October 31, 2011). "Protestant v Catholic: which countries are more successful?". The Guardian. United Kingdom. Retrieved 2012-02-18.

Dr Sascha Becker suggests that religion is a factor in the budgetary discrepancies between the north and south of Europe. In a paper written in 2009 for the Quarterly Journal of Economics, entitled Was Weber Wrong?, Becker and Woessmann argue that Protestants were more successful because they were more educated. They conclude that the educational advantage began soon after Martin Luther broke away from the established Church in the 16th century. It continues to play its part in creating economic success throughout Europe. France, a mostly Catholic country and an economic power in Europe, is cited as an exception to Weber's theory. Becker credit France's early political secularism. drs (talk) 16:21, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Addition to Article - Draft

I wanted to add a more in depth explanation of Weber's expansion of the theory of the two theodicies, fortune and misfortune. I feel the article, while addressing the Protestant work ethic, lacks the relationship these two theodicies have to class and class denominational segregation. The following is a draft I have written to add to the "Sociology of Religion" section. Please add feedback and constructive criticism.

EDIT...figured the draft would make the talk page a bit clustered, so the mentioned draft is posted on my sandbox. (talk) 12:11, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

The draft section is here: User_talk:Jwebz1. --Ktlynch (talk) 11:11, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Geography

In the information box, it correctly states that, at the time of Weber's birth, Erfurt was in the province of Saxony. However, in the main body of the article, it says Weber was born in Erfurt, Thuringia, the German state in which the city now lies, without any qualifier such as 'modern day' or 'now in', which could lead to some confusion and accuracy errors. I didn't want to change anything, rather prefer to flag it up on Talk for someone more qualified to deal with in the correct manner... JSvejk (talk) 17:28, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I am not that well versed in German historical geography. You may want to make a note of your question at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Germany. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 21:40, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

US or UK spelling

The article jumps around between US and UK spelling as to "iza/ize" and "isa/ise". On 1 December the heading "Rationalisation" was changed to "Rationalization" and then reverted, without either editor seeking consistency throughout the article. WP:ENGVAR makes it clear that we should prefer either US or UK spelling throughout (apart from quotations). Weber wrote solely in German, while several English translations have appeared in the US and several in the UK, so there does not seem to be any national association to indicate a preference between US and UK spelling. I don't have a strong view, but one indicator toward a preference for US spelling might be that Weber's central work Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft has been translated into English only once as a whole work and that is as Economy and Society published in the US and accordingly with US spelling. Let us have a quick discussion. --Wikiain (talk) 03:58, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I should think the article would be presented in UK English or even Oxford English which uses the "ize" endings. It is my opinion that American English ought not be the standard because of the primarily European subject matter. Binksternet (talk) 04:52, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

At the last GA Review the subject came up and standard UK English was selected, not Oxford. That is not to say that a different spelling system cannot be chosen in the future... Binksternet (talk) 04:56, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I made the revert you refer to on the basis that the page is marked as 'Use British English' since April 2011, the apparent consensus position. RashersTierney (talk) 10:01, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you - I hadn't noticed that. I have now changed, where not inappropriate, "iza/ize" to "isa/ise". --Wikiain (talk) 05:55, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Weber's political progression 1890–1920

Six times now I have removed from this article a section discussing Weber's politics during the period 1890–1920. User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz has removed it once, too, with the edit summary "OR/subjective/synthesis". Several versions of this section have been put forward. Two of them are as follows:

7 September
Weber's last assessment of Bismarck and his turn away from Wilhelmine politics
Weber, in his late essay after WWI on "Parliament and Government," stated his last assessment and opinion of Bismarck. Weber stated that, "He [Bismarck] left a nation totally without political education [...] totally bereft of political will accustomed to expect that the great man at the top would provide their politics," with the italic text in Weber's original version. This was quoted also by Jonathan Steinberg in his recent 2011 biography titled, Bismarck: A Life, from Oxford University Press. Steinberg adds that by this quote from Weber, that "This crushing verdict by Germany's greatest social scientist brings us full circle," on page 479 of his book. For Weber, this last assessment was in direct contrast to his much earlier comments on Bismarck in the context of his analysis of charismatic leaders. In addition to this, Karl-Ludwig Ay has documented Weber's increasing disenchantment with Wilhelmine politics since the start of the twentieth century so that by the time of the abdication of Wilhelm II in 1918, Weber was prepared constructively for his turn towards democratisation in post-War Germany.

References

 • Jonathan Steinberg (2011), Bismarck: A Life, Oxford University Press.

16 September
Weber's gradual turning from monarchy to democracy: 1890-1920
Wolfgang Mommsen in his book titled Max Weber and German Politics, 1890-1920 presented the timeline of Weber's gradual disenchantment with Wilhelm II and German Imperialism which reached a critical point of reassessment after WWI. Mommsen was joined by Karl-Ludwig Ay in showing this gradual timeline which led Weber slowly, though eventually decisively, from the form of Imperialism which had prevailed during the larger part of his lifetime in Germany to the liberal democracy which he came to embrace after the war was over towards the end of his life. Unlike Bismark before 1890 who had strongly supported monarchic Imperialism, according to Mommsen's interpretation Weber showed his originality of assessing the condition of Germany in the early twentieth century as needing to move as if inexorably to a parliamentary democratic state. This would be accomplished by the end of Weber's life with the new German Constitution of the democratic Weimar government.

References
 • Mommsen, W. "Weber's Political Development Away from Imperialism."

 • Mommsen, W. "Foreign Policy and the Constitutional System," Max Weber and German Politics, 1890–1920, University of Chicago Press, 1990 translation.

There are many problems with this material. The most obvious is that each version is a coatrack for one viewpoint, the first for Steinberg's, the second for Mommsen's. Both versions manage to shoehorn in the name of Dr. Karl-Ludwig Ay, a non-notable historian from Munich who does not need to have a mention in this article because he is not prominent. The first version revolves around Bismarck and is thus more relevant to Bismarck's biography than Weber's. The second version relies on Mommsen who is certainly a prominent Weber scholar, but there are problems with that, too. The primary problem is that Mommsen's conclusions are not compared to other prominent historians who have strongly contrasting views. There is a whole article about Weber's liberalism—Interpretations of Weber's liberalism—where Mommsen says that Weber's ideas promoting a charismatic leader made it easier for Hitler to gain power in Germany. French sociologist Raymond Aron, for one, refutes Mommsen directly. The topic is much, much more complex than one paragraph taken from Mommsen alone.

A minor problem is that Mommsen's book Max Weber and German Politics, 1890–1920 was written based on Weber's published and unpublished writings, so the relevance of Mommsen's conclusions is more historiographic rather than fully contemporary to Weber's life. The unpublished writings would not have been known during Weber's life, nor would they have been known by others until 1959 when Mommsen first published his book. The unpublished essays by Weber would not have had any influence on the world in the 1920s, '30s, '40s and '50s. It was not until 1959 that Mommsen's book burst "like a bombshell on West German academia", according to German sociologist Uta Gerhardt.[10]

Another problem is that Weber was politically ineffective, according to philosophy scholar Sung Ho Kim.[11] The two versions shown above exaggerate Weber's political power. A further problem is that the level of detail is too high for a general summary of the topic. The first version is a deep dive into a minor part of Weber's life. The second version is not at all integrated with the existing biography.

The various IP editors who have been adding this sort of material have been acting in good faith, but the proffered text is wholly inadequate in each instance. I agree that the topic of Weber's liberalism and political development should be summarized in his biography, but with multiple voices and viewpoints, not just Mommsen's or Steinberg's. The Interpretations of Weber's liberalism article should be summarized here with scholarly breadth. Binksternet (talk) 20:39, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Update:

User:Binksternet makes his case directly and plainly. Noticing the spike on the page count stats yesterday, both of the edits appear to have respective merits. My suggestion might be that there is a two paragraph version of this edit, combining Binks's comments above with a condensed version of the two paragraphs blocked out above which might be more effective. Binks's Section title seems to the point and could be retained.

For this suggestion, the first paragraph would state the 1890 connection to Bismarck's ending of his conservative influence on the monarchy in one sentence and in that year. Period. The rest of the paragraph would cover a responsible summary of the Kim list of Weber's liberalism and his less than stellar ability as a statesman. Although Weber was not the most effective statesman he was after all chosen to represent Germany at both the Versailles treaty talks and the drafting of the Weimar Constitution. Weber was far from feckless as a statesman.

For the second paragraph my suggestion would be to follow Mommsen's rendering for following NPOV standards since Kim is so explicitly in contrast and would be given the first paragraph. Gerhart's highly motivated Parsons version of Weber seems largely to repeat much of what Kim states plainly and adequately. Similarly for Aron, since it is Kim and not Aron who writes a book-length study on Weber. The Ay material can be optional and you can suggest a call on it for inclusion or not in the second paragraph being described here. He is not at the stature of Mommsen or Steinberg, yet he was the chief administrator of the Weber archives in Germany for many years and had access to all of the original versions of the Weber texts and manuscripts. If this sounds workable then there could be an NPOV version edited for citation mark-up as needed. 72.68.5.132 (talk) 23:23, 17 September 2013 (UTC)