User:سائغ/H4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Weber argued that Judaism, early Christianity, theology, and later the political party and modern science, were only possible in the urban context that reached a full development in the West alone.[1] He also saw in the history of medieval European cities the rise of a unique form of "non-legitimate domination" that successfully challenged the existing forms of legitimate domination (traditional, charismatic, and rational-legal) that had prevailed until then in the Medieval world.[2] This new domination was based on the great economic and military power wielded by the organised community of city-dwellers ("citizens").

Economics[edit]

Weber regarded himself primarily as a "political economist",[3][4][5] and all his professorial appointments were in economics, though today his contributions in that field are largely overshadowed by his role as a founder of modern sociology. As an economist, Weber belonged to the "youngest" German historical school of economics.[6] The great differences between that school's interests and methods on the one hand and those of the neoclassical school (from which modern mainstream economics largely derives) on the other, explain why Weber's influence on economics today is hard to discern.[7]

Economy and Society[edit]

Weber's magnum opus Economy and Society is a collection of his essays that he was working on at the time of his death in 1920. After his death, the final organization and editing of the book fell to his widow Marianne. The final German form published in 1921 reflected very much Marianne's work and intellectual commitment. The composition includes a wide range of essays dealing with Weber's views regarding sociology, social philosophy, politics, social stratification, world religion, diplomacy, and other subjects.

Beginning in 1956, the German jurist Johannes Winckelmann began editing and organizing the German edition of Economy and Society based on his study of the papers that Weber left at his death. English versions of the work were published as a collected volume in 1968, as edited by Gunther Roth and Claus Wittich. As a result of the various editions in German and English, there are differences between the organization of the different volumes. The book is typically published in a two volume set in both German and English, and is more than 1000 pages long.

Methodological individualism[edit]

Though his research interests were always in line with those of the German historicists, with a strong emphasis on interpreting economic history, Weber's defence of "methodological individualism" in the social sciences represented an important break with that school and an embracing of many of the arguments that had been made against the historicists by Carl Menger, the founder of the Austrian School of economics, in the context of the academic Methodenstreit ("debate over methods") of the late 19th century.[8] The phrase methodological individualism, which has come into common usage in modern debates about the connection between microeconomics and macroeconomics, was coined by the Austrian-American economist Joseph Schumpeter in 1908 as a way of referring to the views of Weber.[8] According to Weber's theses, social research cannot be fully inductive or descriptive, because understanding some phenomenon implies that the researcher must go beyond mere description and interpret it; interpretation requires classification according to abstract "ideal (pure) types".[6] This, together with his antipositivistic argumentation (see Verstehen), can be taken as a methodological justification for the model of the "rational economic man" (homo economicus), which is at the heart of modern mainstream economics.[8][6]

Marginalism and psychophysics[edit]

Unlike other historicists, Weber also accepted the marginal theory of value (aka "marginalism") and taught it to his students.[9][10] In 1908, Weber published an article in which he drew a sharp methodological distinction between psychology and economics and attacked the claims that the marginal theory of value in economics reflected the form of the psychological response to stimuli as described by the Weber-Fechner law. Max Weber's article has been cited as a definitive refutation of the dependence of the economic theory of value on the laws of psychophysics by Lionel Robbins, George Stigler,[11] and Friedrich Hayek, though the broader issue of the relation between economics and psychology has come back into the academic debate with the development of "behavioral economics".[12]

Economic history[edit]

Weber's best known work in economics concerned the preconditions for capitalist development, particularly the relations between religion and capitalism, which he explored in The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism as well as in his other works on the sociology of religion.[6] He argued that bureaucratic political and economic systems emerging in the Middle Ages were essential in the rise of modern capitalism (including rational book-keeping and organisation of formally free labour), while they were a hindrance in the case of ancient capitalism, which had a different social and political structure based on conquest, slavery, and the coastal city-state.[13] Other contributions include his early work on the economic history of Roman agrarian society (1891) and on the labour relations in Eastern Germany (1892), his analysis of the history of commercial partnerships in the Middle Ages (1889), his critique of Marxism, the discussion of the roles of idealism and materialism in the history of capitalism in his Economy and Society (1922) and his General Economic History (1923), a notable example of the kind of empirical work associated with the German Historical School.[6]

Although today Weber is primarily read by sociologists and social philosophers, Weber's work did have a significant influence on Frank Knight, one of the founders of the neoclassical Chicago school of economics, who translated Weber's General Economic History into English in 1927.[14] Knight also wrote in 1956 that Max Weber was the only economist who dealt with the problem of understanding the emergence of modern capitalism "... from the angle which alone can yield an answer to such questions, that is, the angle of comparative history in the broad sense."[10]

Economic calculation[edit]

Weber, like his colleague Werner Sombart, regarded economic calculation and especially the double-entry bookkeeping method of business accounting, as one of the most important forms of rationalisation associated with the development of modern capitalism.[15] Weber's preoccupation with the importance of economic calculation led him to critique socialism as a system that lacked a mechanism for allocating resources efficiently to satisfy human needs.[16] Socialist intellectuals like Otto Neurath had realised that in a completely socialised economy, prices would not exist and central planners would have to resort to in-kind (rather than monetary) economic calculation.[16][17] According to Weber, this type of coordination would be inefficient, especially because it would be incapable of solving the problem of imputation (i.e. of accurately determining the relative values of capital goods).[16][17] Weber wrote that, under full socialism:[18]

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

This argument against socialism was made independently, at about the same time, by Ludwig von Mises.[16][19] Weber himself had a significant influence on Mises, whom he had befriended when they were both at the University of Vienna in the spring of 1918,[20] and, through Mises, on several other economists associated with the Austrian School in the 20th century.[21] Friedrich Hayek in particular elaborated the arguments of Weber and Mises about economic calculation into a central part of free market economics's intellectual assault on socialism, as well as into a model for the spontaneous coordination of "dispersed knowledge" in markets.[22][23][24]

Inspirations[edit]

Kantianism[edit]

Weber's thinking was strongly influenced by German idealism, particularly by neo-Kantianism, which he had been exposed to through Heinrich Rickert, his professorial colleague at the University of Freiburg.[25] Especially important to Weber's work is the neo-Kantian belief that reality is essentially chaotic and incomprehensible, with all rational order deriving from the way the human mind focuses attention on certain aspects of reality and organises the resulting perceptions.[25] Weber's opinions regarding the methodology of the social sciences show parallels with the work of contemporary neo-Kantian philosopher and pioneering sociologist Georg Simmel.[26]

Weber was also influenced by Kantian ethics, which he nonetheless came to think of as obsolete in a modern age lacking in religious certainties. In this last respect, the influence of Friedrich Nietzsche's philosophy is evident.[25] According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, the "deep tension between the Kantian moral imperatives and a Nietzschean diagnosis of the modern cultural world is apparently what gives such a darkly tragic and agnostic shade to Weber's ethical worldview."[25]

Marxism[edit]

Another major influence in Weber's life was the writings of Karl Marx and the workings of socialist thought in academia and active politics. While Weber shares some of Marx's consternation with bureaucratic systems and maligns them as being capable of advancing their own logic to the detriment of human freedom and autonomy, Weber views conflict as perpetual and inevitable and does not host the spirit of a materially available utopia.[27]: 288 

Writing in 1932, Karl Löwith, contrasted the work of Marx and Weber, arguing that both were interested in the causes and effects of Western Capitalism but that Marx viewed capitalism through the lens of alienation while Weber used the concept of rationalization.[28]: 34 

Though the influence of his mother's Calvinist religiosity is evident throughout Weber's life and work as he maintained a deep, lifelong interest in the study of religions, Weber was open about the fact that he was personally irreligious.[29][30]

Economics and historicism[edit]

As a political economist and economic historian, Weber belonged to the "youngest" German historical school of economics, represented by academics such as Gustav von Schmoller and his student Werner Sombart. However, even though Weber's research interests were very much in line with this school, his views on methodology and the theory of value diverged significantly from those of other German historicists and were closer, in fact, to those of Carl Menger and the Austrian School, the traditional rivals of the historical school.[9][8]

Occultism[edit]

New research suggests that some of Weber's theories, including his interest in the sociology of Far Eastern religion and elements of his theory of disenchantment, were actually shaped by Weber's interaction with contemporary German occult figures. He is known to have visited the Ordo Templi Orientis at Monte Verità shortly before articulating his idea of disenchantment.[31]: 269–70  He is known to have met the German poet and occultist Stefan George and developed some elements of his theory of charisma after observing George. However, Weber disagreed with many of George's views and never formally joined George's occult circle.[31]: 290–93  Weber may have also had his first exposure to Taoism, albeit in a Westernized form, through Gustav Gräser at Monte Verità.[31]: 275–76  Research on Weber's engagement with the occult has led some German and American scholars[who?] to re-interpret his theories of disenchantment.

Legacy[edit]

  • The prestige of Max Weber among European social scientists would be difficult to over-estimate. He is widely considered the greatest of German sociologists and ... has become a leading influence in European and American thought.|Hans Heinrich Gerth and C. Wright Mills|title=From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology (1946)[32]|source=}}

Weber's most influential work was on economic sociology, political sociology, and the sociology of religion. Along with Karl Marx and Émile Durkheim,[4] he is commonly regarded as one of the founders of modern sociology. But whereas Durkheim, following Comte, worked in the positivist tradition, Weber was instrumental in developing an antipositivist, hermeneutic, tradition in the social sciences.[33] In this regard he belongs to a similar tradition as his German colleagues Werner Sombart, Georg Simmel, and Wilhelm Dilthey, who stressed the differences between the methodologies appropriate to the social and the natural sciences.[33]

Weber presented sociology as the science of human social action; action that he separated into traditional, affectional, value-rational and instrumental.[34][35] To Weber, sociology was:[36]

... the science whose object is to interpret the meaning of social action and thereby give a causal explanation of the way in which the action proceeds and the effects which it produces. By "action" in this definition is meant the human behaviour when and to the extent that the agent or agents see it as subjectively meaningful ... the meaning to which we refer may be either (a) the meaning actually intended either by an individual agent on a particular historical occasion or by a number of agents on an approximate average in a given set of cases, or (b) the meaning attributed to the agent or agents, as types, in a pure type constructed in the abstract. In neither case is the "meaning" to be thought of as somehow objectively "correct" or "true" by some metaphysical criterion. This is the difference between the empirical sciences of action, such as sociology and history and any kind of a priori discipline, such as jurisprudence, logic, ethics, or aesthetics whose aim is to extract from their subject-matter "correct" or "valid" meaning.

— Max Weber, The Nature of Social Action (1922)

In his own time, however, Weber was viewed primarily as a historian and an economist.[5] The breadth of Weber's topical interests is apparent in the depth of his social theory, Joachim Radkau (2009) writing:[37]: (inside sleeve) 

The affinity between capitalism and Protestantism, the religious origins of the Western world, the force of charisma in religion as well as in politics, the all-embracing process of rationalisation and the bureaucratic price of progress, the role of legitimacy and of violence as the offspring of leadership, the "disenchantment" of the modern world together with the never-ending power of religion, the antagonistic relation between intellectualism and eroticism: all these are key concepts which attest to the enduring fascination of Weber's thinking.

Many of Weber's works famous today were collected, revised and published posthumously. Significant interpretations of his writings were produced by such sociological luminaries as Talcott Parsons and C. Wright Mills. Parsons in particular imparted to Weber's works a functionalist, teleological perspective; this personal interpretation has been criticised for a latent conservatism.[38]

Weber influenced many later social theorists, such as Theodor Adorno, Max Horkheimer, György Lukács and Jürgen Habermas.[25] Different elements of his thought were emphasised by Ludwig Lachmann,[39] Carl Schmitt, Joseph Schumpeter, Leo Strauss, Hans Morgenthau, and Raymond Aron.[25] According to the Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises, who had met Weber during his time at the University of Vienna, "The early death of this genius was a great disaster for Germany. Had Weber lived longer, the German people of today would be able to look to this example of an 'Aryan' who would not be broken by National Socialism."[40]

Weber's friend, the psychiatrist and existentialist philosopher Karl Jaspers, described him as "the greatest German of our era". Weber's untimely death felt to Jaspers "as if the German world had lost its heart".[41] Harvard professor Paul Tillich (1968) observed about Weber that he was "perhaps the greatest scholar in Germany of the nineteenth century".[42]

Nicholas Gane, argues that there are similarities between the work of postmodern philosopher, Michel Foucault and Weber, with both thinkers being concerned with the effects of rationalization on how people lead their lives.[43]: 113  Gane argues that Foucault goes further than Weber in offering two methods for the individual to resist rationalization: by looking at the history of the development of rationalization in so-called genealogy, the factors that influenced this rationalization, and how rationalization differed in the past; and looking at how power relations and current knowledge interaction with particular rationalizations.[43]: 114 

Critical responses to Weber[edit]

Weber's explanations are highly specific to the historical periods he analysed.[44] Some academics disagree, pointing out that, despite the fact that Weber did write in the early twentieth century, his ideas remain alive and relevant for understanding issues like politics, bureaucracy, and social stratification today.[45]: 1–18 

Many scholars, however, disagree with specific claims in Weber's historical analysis. For example, the economist Joseph Schumpeter (1954) argued that capitalism did not begin with the Industrial Revolution but in 14th century Italy.[46] In Milan, Venice and Florence, the small city-state governments led to the development of the earliest forms of capitalism.[47] In the 16th century, Antwerp was a commercial centre of Europe. Also, the predominantly Calvinist country of Scotland did not enjoy the same economic growth as the Netherlands, England and New England. It has been pointed out that the Netherlands, which had a Calvinist majority, industrialised much later in the 19th century than predominantly Catholic Belgium, which was one of the centres of the Industrial Revolution on the European mainland.[48] Emil Kauder (1953) expanded Schumpeter's argument, by arguing the hypothesis that Calvinism hurt the development of capitalism by leading to the development of the labour theory of value.[49]

Works[edit]

For an extensive list of Max Weber's works, see Max Weber bibliography.

Weber wrote in German. Original titles printed after his death (1920) are most likely compilations of his unfinished works (of the Collected Essays ... form). Many translations are made of parts or sections of various German originals and the names of the translations often do not reveal what part of the original they contain. Weber's writings are generally cited according to the critical Max Weber-Gesamtausgabe (Collected Works), published by Mohr Siebeck in Tübingen.

See also[edit]

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference SwedbergAgevall-city was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference SwedbergAgevall-nonlegitimate was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ Cite error: The named reference ScienceVoc was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  4. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference WPet was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  5. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference PRBaehr was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  6. ^ a b c d e Cite error: The named reference capa was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  7. ^ "The German Historical School". The History of Economic Thought Website. The New School. Archived from the original 20 February 2011.
  8. ^ a b c d Cite error: The named reference StanfordIndividualism was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  9. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference Swedberg-econ-soc was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  10. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference Schweitzer was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  11. ^ Stigler, George (1950). "The Development of Utility Theory". The Journal of Political Economy. 58 (5): 373–96. doi:10.1086/256980. JSTOR 1825710. S2CID 222450704.
  12. ^ Mass, Harro (2009). "Disciplining Boundaries: Lionel Robbins, Max Weber, and the Borderlands of Economics, History, and Psychology". Journal of the History of Economic Thought. 31 (4): 500. doi:10.1017/S1053837209990289. S2CID 146195008.
  13. ^ Weber, Max. Selections in Translation. Trans. Eric Matthews. Ed. W.G. Runciman. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. "Urbanisation and Social Structure in the Ancient World", pp. 290–314.
  14. ^ Cite error: The named reference Emmett was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  15. ^ Cite error: The named reference SwedbergAgevall2005-22 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  16. ^ a b c d Cite error: The named reference Tribe was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  17. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference StanfordNeurathSup was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  18. ^ Cite error: The named reference EconSoc-calculation was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  19. ^ Cite error: The named reference Hulsmann was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  20. ^ Cite error: The named reference Mises-Weber was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  21. ^ Cite error: The named reference Haberler was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  22. ^ Hayek, Friedrich. 1948. "Socialist Calculation Archived 28 October 2021 at the Wayback Machine". In Individualism and Economic Order. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  23. ^ F.A. Hayek Interviewed By John O'Sullivan on Vimeo, uploaded by FEE (2009). Films for the Humanities, Inc. (1985).
  24. ^ Cite error: The named reference HayekNobel was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  25. ^ a b c d e f Cite error: The named reference plato.stanford.edu was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  26. ^ Frisby, David (2002). Georg Simmel. Key Sociologists (Second ed.). London: Routledge. ISBN 978-0-415-28535-3.
  27. ^ Cite error: The named reference :2 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  28. ^ Löwith, Karl (1993). Max Weber and Karl Marx. London: Routledge. ISBN 0-585-44764-0. OCLC 52423743. Archived from the original on 28 October 2021. Retrieved 18 September 2021.
  29. ^ Cite error: The named reference :3 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  30. ^ Mittleman, Alan (1999). "Leo Strauss and Relativism: the Critique of Max Weber". Religion. 29: 15–27. doi:10.1006/reli.1999.0176.
  31. ^ a b c Cite error: The named reference Josephson-Storm was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  32. ^ Cite error: The named reference WeberGerth1991 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  33. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference JKRhoads was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  34. ^ Cite error: The named reference Ferrante was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  35. ^ Cite error: The named reference Ritzer2009-33 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  36. ^ Weber, Max The Nature of Social Action, in Runciman, W.G., Weber: Selections in Translation, Cambridge University Press, 1991. p. 7.
  37. ^ Radkau, Joachim and Patrick Camiller (2009). Max Weber: A Biography, translated by P. Camiller. London: Polity Press. ISBN 978-0-7456-4147-8.
  38. ^ Fish, Jonathan S. 2005. Defending the Durkheimian Tradition. Religion, Emotion and Morality. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing.
  39. ^ Cite error: The named reference Lachmann1970 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  40. ^ von Mises, Ludwig. 2009 [1940]. Memoirs Archived 2 October 2013 at the Wayback Machine. Auburn, AL: Mises Institute. p. 88.
  41. ^ Quoted in Baehr, Peter. 2001. "The Grammar of Prudence: Arendt, Jaspers and the Appraisal of Max Weber Archived 25 February 2017 at the Wayback Machine". In Hannah Arendt in Jerusalem, edited by S. E. Aschheim. Berkeley: University of California Press. p. 410.
  42. ^ Tillich, Paul. 1968. A History of Christian Thought. p. 233.
  43. ^ a b Gane, Nicholas (2002). Max Weber and postmodern theory : rationalization versus re-enchantment. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave. ISBN 0-333-93058-4. OCLC 48399032. Archived from the original on 28 October 2021. Retrieved 18 September 2021.
  44. ^ Cite error: The named reference AllanAllan2005-150-151 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  45. ^ Cite error: The named reference :4 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  46. ^ Schumpeter, Joseph (1954). History of Economic Analysis. Oxford University Press.
  47. ^ Rothbard, Murray N. (1995). Economic Thought Before Adam Smith. Ludwig von Mises Press. p. 142.
  48. ^ Evans, Eric J. (1983). The Forging of the Modern State: Early Industrial Britain, 1783–1870. Longman. p. 114. ISBN 978-0-582-48969-1.
  49. ^ Kauder, Emil (1953). "The Retarded Acceptance of the Marginal Utility Theory". Quarterly Journal of Economics. 67 (4): 564–75. doi:10.2307/1883602. JSTOR 1883602.