What do you think?
Rate this book
The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism and Other Writings
In The Protestant Ethic, Max Weber opposes the Marxist concept of dialectical materialism and relates the rise of the capitalist economy to the Calvinist belief in the moral value of hard work and the fulfillment of one's worldly duties.
For more than seventy years, Penguin has been the leading publisher of classic literature in the English-speaking world. With more than 1,700 titles, Penguin Classics represents a global bookshelf of the best works throughout history and across genres and disciplines. Readers trust the series to provide authoritative texts enhanced by introductions and notes by distinguished scholars and contemporary authors, as well as up-to-date translations by award-winning translators.
For more than seventy years, Penguin has been the leading publisher of classic literature in the English-speaking world. With more than 1,700 titles, Penguin Classics represents a global bookshelf of the best works throughout history and across genres and disciplines. Readers trust the series to provide authoritative texts enhanced by introductions and notes by distinguished scholars and contemporary authors, as well as up-to-date translations by award-winning translators.
392 pages, Paperback
First published November 1, 1904
1332 people are currently reading
30362 people want to read
About the author
Max Weber
817 books1,013 followers(Arabic: ماكس فيبر)
Maximilian Carl Emil Weber was a German lawyer, politician, historian, sociologist and political economist, who profoundly influenced social theory and the remit of sociology itself. His major works dealt with the rationalization, bureaucratization and 'disenchantment' associated with the rise of capitalism. Weber was, along with his associate Georg Simmel, a central figure in the establishment of methodological antipositivism; presenting sociology as a non-empirical field which must study social action through resolutely subjective means.
Maximilian Carl Emil Weber was a German lawyer, politician, historian, sociologist and political economist, who profoundly influenced social theory and the remit of sociology itself. His major works dealt with the rationalization, bureaucratization and 'disenchantment' associated with the rise of capitalism. Weber was, along with his associate Georg Simmel, a central figure in the establishment of methodological antipositivism; presenting sociology as a non-empirical field which must study social action through resolutely subjective means.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 867 reviews
May 8, 2012
I think you could get away with reading just chapter five of this one - that is where the guts of the argument is. It is not that the rest of the book is completely uninteresting, but it is much less interesting. It is in this final chapter that the real thesis is worked out.
A thumbnail version goes like this. There appears to be lots more Protestant capitalists than there are Catholic ones. Also, Protestant countries tend to be more economically developed than Catholic ones - so why? Marxism would say that people's ideas are a manifestation of the economic structure they find themselves in, but Weber believes this is only partly true, although he starts off strongly opposed to Marxism, in the end he is much less certain of the limits of the role of economics in providing the base for these ideas to flourish.. All the same, he believes that there is something in Protestantism that makes Capitalism more or less inevitable and that is not present in Catholicism.
Now, given the countries picked - Italy and Spain on the Catholic side, Northern Europe and England on the Protestant side, you could possibly argue that living in a country with an incredibly bad cuisine is the problem. But Weber focuses on religion. In the last chapter he says that extreme Protestant views run something like this - God has a perfect plan which he worked out at the dawn of time. There is nothing you can do to change this plan. You don't deserve to be saved - no one does (we are all contemptible sinners and it is only God's grace which saves us in any sense). You cannot know you are saved. The only way you might 'guess' is if God rewards you. So, if you work hard and gain riches you are obviously in God's favour and therefore you might also be saved. Spending money is a sin. So, Calvinism and other extreme sects encouraged people to work hard and not to spend - prerequisites for the growth of Capitalism.
Now, that bit is the bit this book is mostly known for. But what I found interesting was the idea at the very end that becoming increasingly wealthy - like Silus Marner - also leads one to become increasingly obsessed with secular interests, not least in increasing ones own wealth to the point of a fetish and to become obsessed with worldly goods, rather than heavenly ones. So, while Protestantism is seen as a kind of prerequisite for the early development of Capitalism, ironically enough, Capitalism does not return the favour and works to undermine the extreme forms of this faith that assisted its own development.
Interesting stuff.
A thumbnail version goes like this. There appears to be lots more Protestant capitalists than there are Catholic ones. Also, Protestant countries tend to be more economically developed than Catholic ones - so why? Marxism would say that people's ideas are a manifestation of the economic structure they find themselves in, but Weber believes this is only partly true, although he starts off strongly opposed to Marxism, in the end he is much less certain of the limits of the role of economics in providing the base for these ideas to flourish.. All the same, he believes that there is something in Protestantism that makes Capitalism more or less inevitable and that is not present in Catholicism.
Now, given the countries picked - Italy and Spain on the Catholic side, Northern Europe and England on the Protestant side, you could possibly argue that living in a country with an incredibly bad cuisine is the problem. But Weber focuses on religion. In the last chapter he says that extreme Protestant views run something like this - God has a perfect plan which he worked out at the dawn of time. There is nothing you can do to change this plan. You don't deserve to be saved - no one does (we are all contemptible sinners and it is only God's grace which saves us in any sense). You cannot know you are saved. The only way you might 'guess' is if God rewards you. So, if you work hard and gain riches you are obviously in God's favour and therefore you might also be saved. Spending money is a sin. So, Calvinism and other extreme sects encouraged people to work hard and not to spend - prerequisites for the growth of Capitalism.
Now, that bit is the bit this book is mostly known for. But what I found interesting was the idea at the very end that becoming increasingly wealthy - like Silus Marner - also leads one to become increasingly obsessed with secular interests, not least in increasing ones own wealth to the point of a fetish and to become obsessed with worldly goods, rather than heavenly ones. So, while Protestantism is seen as a kind of prerequisite for the early development of Capitalism, ironically enough, Capitalism does not return the favour and works to undermine the extreme forms of this faith that assisted its own development.
Interesting stuff.
May 30, 2017
Protestantism is ballin'.
Amazing how much this book is about the hustler spirit: dude who'd buy in bulk, talk to his customers and push volume, figure out how to innovate to make a better product. Break with tradition. And apparently protestant women are very best at innovating, so says Weber.
Weber basically writes to Marx at a couple points, referring to "materialist" theories, basically saying that Southern US plantations had all the time and talk of capitalists but the northern homesteaders got rich. English in 1300 = a bunch of scoundrels. England after the seeing Lutherianism during the Thirty Years War = ballin'.
This was an extremely embarrassing book to read while unemployed.
Amazing how much this book is about the hustler spirit: dude who'd buy in bulk, talk to his customers and push volume, figure out how to innovate to make a better product. Break with tradition. And apparently protestant women are very best at innovating, so says Weber.
Weber basically writes to Marx at a couple points, referring to "materialist" theories, basically saying that Southern US plantations had all the time and talk of capitalists but the northern homesteaders got rich. English in 1300 = a bunch of scoundrels. England after the seeing Lutherianism during the Thirty Years War = ballin'.
This was an extremely embarrassing book to read while unemployed.
February 27, 2012
One of the central disputes in Protestantism had long been that between the Calvinists and the Arminians. The Calvinist believed that every person had been chosen by God in the beginning to be either saved or damned, and that there was nothing anybody could do to change his decision. These “elect” individuals could not be certain of their salvation, but they might be identified by their tendency to live lives of piety and goodness. In contrast, the followers of Arminius thought that each individual could hope to gain salvation by repenting his sins and by asking God to bestow his Grace. In the United Kingdom, Calvinism was centrally been found in Scots and Ulster Presbyterianism, while Arminianism had ruled among Anglicans and Methodists.
From the great revivals of the 1850s steadily until the Great War, this great divide began to dissipate. A new division was emerging between “liberals” and “conservatives”. Nevertheless, the old disputes limped on, still quite strenuously among Ulster Presbyterians who fought a bitter if obscure theological battle over church music. So when a list of “fundamental principles” was formulated to unite conservative Christianity, these American “fundamentalists” tiptoed carefully to avoid stirring up the old dispute. They made no mention of individuals turning to or putting trust in God, and no mention of predestination.
Weber’s most famous study has its focus in the Calvinists. Calvin established a new kind of saintliness for merchants and artisans living first of all in Geneva, but later in London, Amsterdam and Edinburgh and then further afield. The piety of the Calvinists had strong echoes of an older piety found in the best of the monasteries. Like the monks, the life of a dutiful Calvinist was one of hard work and diligence, frugality and seriousness with little frivolity. Since everything was pre-ordained, this life of obedience and frugality could not be hoped to bring salvation. Rather, it was a mere subservience to God’s Law which, in Calvin’s system, replaced the Rule of the great monastic leaders. Calvinism also claimed the right of the Elect to rule over the non-Elect in a theocratic political system.
The monks, in pursuing pious obedience, poverty and chastity had inadvertently made their houses and their orders rich. So it was with the pious businessmen. They too lived frugally and worked hard. Without really intending to, the Calvinists made themselves and their households rich. This was the so-called “Protestant ethic” identified by Weber as giving birth to capitalism.
After the Great War, Calvinism slipped finally from view, overtaken, diluted and absorbed by the Arminian doctrine that now became Protestant “conservative” or “evangelical” orthodoxy. Protestants conservatives were now universally enjoined to turn to God, to confess their sins and put their trust in a God who would reciprocate by offering salvation. The few people who still called themselves Calvinists merely emphasised the last part of this process, the positive activity of God. There were still other movements within Protestantism, the enlightened theology of the Quakers or the Unitarians, for example, and the High Church found in Anglicanism, both of which, however, were more important as belonging to the liberal camp. But it was now a different theological world.
From the great revivals of the 1850s steadily until the Great War, this great divide began to dissipate. A new division was emerging between “liberals” and “conservatives”. Nevertheless, the old disputes limped on, still quite strenuously among Ulster Presbyterians who fought a bitter if obscure theological battle over church music. So when a list of “fundamental principles” was formulated to unite conservative Christianity, these American “fundamentalists” tiptoed carefully to avoid stirring up the old dispute. They made no mention of individuals turning to or putting trust in God, and no mention of predestination.
Weber’s most famous study has its focus in the Calvinists. Calvin established a new kind of saintliness for merchants and artisans living first of all in Geneva, but later in London, Amsterdam and Edinburgh and then further afield. The piety of the Calvinists had strong echoes of an older piety found in the best of the monasteries. Like the monks, the life of a dutiful Calvinist was one of hard work and diligence, frugality and seriousness with little frivolity. Since everything was pre-ordained, this life of obedience and frugality could not be hoped to bring salvation. Rather, it was a mere subservience to God’s Law which, in Calvin’s system, replaced the Rule of the great monastic leaders. Calvinism also claimed the right of the Elect to rule over the non-Elect in a theocratic political system.
The monks, in pursuing pious obedience, poverty and chastity had inadvertently made their houses and their orders rich. So it was with the pious businessmen. They too lived frugally and worked hard. Without really intending to, the Calvinists made themselves and their households rich. This was the so-called “Protestant ethic” identified by Weber as giving birth to capitalism.
After the Great War, Calvinism slipped finally from view, overtaken, diluted and absorbed by the Arminian doctrine that now became Protestant “conservative” or “evangelical” orthodoxy. Protestants conservatives were now universally enjoined to turn to God, to confess their sins and put their trust in a God who would reciprocate by offering salvation. The few people who still called themselves Calvinists merely emphasised the last part of this process, the positive activity of God. There were still other movements within Protestantism, the enlightened theology of the Quakers or the Unitarians, for example, and the High Church found in Anglicanism, both of which, however, were more important as belonging to the liberal camp. But it was now a different theological world.
July 17, 2025
ماکس وبر مشاهده کرد که در عرض چند قرن پس از نهضت اصلاح دینی، کشورهای پروتستان به کشورهای پیشرو در اقتصاد تبدیل شدند، در حالی که کشورهای کاتولیک در عرصهی اقتصاد عقب افتادند، و در کتاب «اخلاق پروتستانی و روح سرمایهداری» ظهور سرمایهداری مدرن را محصول اخلاقی دانست که نهضت اصلاح دینی پدید آورد.
سرمایهداری تنها به معنی مالاندوزی نیست، چرا که مالاندوزی در فرهنگهای دیگر نیز وجود داشت بی آن که منتهی به سرمایهداری شود. آن چیزی که سرمایهداری را از مالاندوزی دیگر فرهنگها متمایز میکند، روحیهی خاص سرمایهداری است: نوعی احساس وظیفه در افزایش سود به شکل نامتناهی، به شکلی سختکوشانه و با انضباط، و تبدیل سود به سرمایه، بدون صرف آن در مصارف غیر مولّد. در فرهنگهای دیگر سود به خودی خود هدف نبود و برای مثال هر گاه سود افزایش مییافت، ساعات کاری را کم میکردند تا بتوانند زندگی آسودهای داشته باشند.
ماکس وبر این روحیهی خاص را محصول نهضت اصلاح دینی میداند و توضیح میدهد که چگونه نهضت اصلاح دینی، گرچه به طور مستقیم مخالف مالاندوزی بود، ناخواسته به ظهور سرمایهداری منجر شد.
نخستین قدم توسط لوتر برداشته شد که مشاغل روزمره را وظایف محوّل شده از سوی خدا دانست و فعالیت در مشاغل روزمره را نوعی عمل دینی قلمداد کرد.
مرحلهی دوم سختکوشی و انضباط در دینداری بود. دینداری کاتولیک ساده بود: شخص گناهکار با انجام آیینهایی روشن و در دسترس، همچون اعتراف، میتوانست به آمرزش برسد و وجدان خود را آسوده کند. اما در نهضت اصلاح دینی این آیینها برداشته شد و دینداری سخت شد. اینک شخص باید در دینداری منضبط باشد، مدام رفتار خود را مهار کند و بر خود نظارتی دائم داشته باشد. از آن جا که مشاغل دنیوی نیز نوعی دینداری بودند، انضباط لازم در دینداری به مشاغل دنیوی نیز تسرّی یافت.
قدم بعدی را ژان کالوَن برداشت. بنا به کالوَن هیچ کس نمیداند که آیا در تقدیر ازلی برگزیده شده یا نه. روحانیان کالوَنی توصیه میکردند که مردم به جای این که به این فکر کنند که آیا به واقع برگزیده شدهاند یا نه، به «نشانههای» برگزیدگی توجه کنند، به این که مدام در زندگی خود در دینداری رشد میکنند و در مسیر تقدّس حرکت میکنند. از آن جایی که مشاغل دنیوی نیز فعالیت دینی بودند، انتظار بود که شخص در شغل دنیوی خود نیز مدام پیشرفت کند. از طرف دیگر کلیسای اصلاحشده از تجملات بیزار بود و زندگی و دینداری میبایست در نهایت سادگی و زهد میبود. در نتیجه پول خود را صرف تجملات و خوشگذرانی نمیکردند. در عوض پول به سرمایه تبدیل میشد تا پیشرفت شغلی به همراه بیاورد.
جمع شدن سختکوشانه و با انضباط ثروت بر روی هم، بدون صرف شدن آن برای تجملات و خوشگذرانی، در عرض چند نسل موجب شکلگیری سرمایههای غولآسا شد که در دنیای پیشامدرن سابقه نداشت.
سرمایهداری تنها به معنی مالاندوزی نیست، چرا که مالاندوزی در فرهنگهای دیگر نیز وجود داشت بی آن که منتهی به سرمایهداری شود. آن چیزی که سرمایهداری را از مالاندوزی دیگر فرهنگها متمایز میکند، روحیهی خاص سرمایهداری است: نوعی احساس وظیفه در افزایش سود به شکل نامتناهی، به شکلی سختکوشانه و با انضباط، و تبدیل سود به سرمایه، بدون صرف آن در مصارف غیر مولّد. در فرهنگهای دیگر سود به خودی خود هدف نبود و برای مثال هر گاه سود افزایش مییافت، ساعات کاری را کم میکردند تا بتوانند زندگی آسودهای داشته باشند.
ماکس وبر این روحیهی خاص را محصول نهضت اصلاح دینی میداند و توضیح میدهد که چگونه نهضت اصلاح دینی، گرچه به طور مستقیم مخالف مالاندوزی بود، ناخواسته به ظهور سرمایهداری منجر شد.
نخستین قدم توسط لوتر برداشته شد که مشاغل روزمره را وظایف محوّل شده از سوی خدا دانست و فعالیت در مشاغل روزمره را نوعی عمل دینی قلمداد کرد.
مرحلهی دوم سختکوشی و انضباط در دینداری بود. دینداری کاتولیک ساده بود: شخص گناهکار با انجام آیینهایی روشن و در دسترس، همچون اعتراف، میتوانست به آمرزش برسد و وجدان خود را آسوده کند. اما در نهضت اصلاح دینی این آیینها برداشته شد و دینداری سخت شد. اینک شخص باید در دینداری منضبط باشد، مدام رفتار خود را مهار کند و بر خود نظارتی دائم داشته باشد. از آن جا که مشاغل دنیوی نیز نوعی دینداری بودند، انضباط لازم در دینداری به مشاغل دنیوی نیز تسرّی یافت.
قدم بعدی را ژان کالوَن برداشت. بنا به کالوَن هیچ کس نمیداند که آیا در تقدیر ازلی برگزیده شده یا نه. روحانیان کالوَنی توصیه میکردند که مردم به جای این که به این فکر کنند که آیا به واقع برگزیده شدهاند یا نه، به «نشانههای» برگزیدگی توجه کنند، به این که مدام در زندگی خود در دینداری رشد میکنند و در مسیر تقدّس حرکت میکنند. از آن جایی که مشاغل دنیوی نیز فعالیت دینی بودند، انتظار بود که شخص در شغل دنیوی خود نیز مدام پیشرفت کند. از طرف دیگر کلیسای اصلاحشده از تجملات بیزار بود و زندگی و دینداری میبایست در نهایت سادگی و زهد میبود. در نتیجه پول خود را صرف تجملات و خوشگذرانی نمیکردند. در عوض پول به سرمایه تبدیل میشد تا پیشرفت شغلی به همراه بیاورد.
جمع شدن سختکوشانه و با انضباط ثروت بر روی هم، بدون صرف شدن آن برای تجملات و خوشگذرانی، در عرض چند نسل موجب شکلگیری سرمایههای غولآسا شد که در دنیای پیشامدرن سابقه نداشت.
September 5, 2018
We don't popularly associate capitalism with the religious idea of "asceticism" today, thinking of it more in terms of conspicuous consumption and vulgar materialism if anything. In this classic essay by Max Weber however, he lays out how the foundations of modern capitalism were actually laid in Protestant ideas of self-restraint, worldly action, and a disdain for accumulating wealth for its own sake or engaging in slothfulness. Its not a surprise to me that all our modern ideas, including in the West, have religious origins, as the contemporary philosopher John Gray has spent a lifetime pointing out. Nonetheless I appreciated the detail that Weber added about how specifically Christian ideas and practices helped lay the foundations for capitalism in its productive stage. Today these Christian ideas have largely withered away and been forgotten, leaving us trapped in the "iron cage" of rational organization that they helped create but without the vital spiritual component. As the values of self-restraint that made capitalism disappear, the idea of such a system as constructive or desirable disappear with it. The lingering Protestant exhortation to praise work in itself may also become a hindrance to dealing with a world in which automation does many of the tasks that humans once did. Luckily the medieval Christians considered contemplation a type of labor as well, something that perhaps people will now be motivated to rediscover the merits of.
To get the most out of this book it would help to be very familiar with Christianity and the nature of its different sects. I have a passing familiarity but not as much as I might've liked to fully appreciate why Calvinism and Pietism may have had different impacts on the later development of capitalist society.
To get the most out of this book it would help to be very familiar with Christianity and the nature of its different sects. I have a passing familiarity but not as much as I might've liked to fully appreciate why Calvinism and Pietism may have had different impacts on the later development of capitalist society.
March 13, 2010
For years we have been assaulted by politicians and religious leaders preaching the Christian "work ethic," yet I find little justification, if any, for the concept anywhere in the New Testament. I happened to be discussing this with my dad a while ago, who also happens to be one of the smartest people I know, and he recommended Weber’s book. First published in 1905, it provoked considerable controversy.
Weber's thought was grounded in a belief that history is of critical portance to the social sciences and that material factors had enormous influence upon the course of history — I didn't know any of this, I'm stealing it from the introduction. Weber was very critical of Marxism, but shared with Marx a concern for the evolution of industrialism capitalism. In the first few chapters, Weber defines what he means by capitalism. It's not just the pursuit of wealth that has been common to numerous cultures, but is an activity associated with the rational organization of formally free labor (his italics). Capitalism requires an organized labor force and a ready source of investment capital. Some of these factors were not present in Hindu and Confucian societies. Hinduism, in particular its tradition of caste, prevented the ready organization of the labor force. Also, its emphasis on asceticism focused toward the otherworldly and afterlife, and tended to accentuate the non-material. Trade was highly developed in China as in India, but Confucianism permitted a more material focus. The Calvinist ethic combined Judaism's "ethical prophecy" that encouraged emulation of the prophet with the eastern traditions to form a philosophy of reformation, i.e. achieve salvation through reforming the world by means of economic activity.
The development of the Western city was also important because they provided the foundation for political autonomy and the creation of a bourgeois society. Eastern civilizations were hampered by strong kinship relationships that crossed the agrarian-urban boundaries which tied the cities more firmly to an agrarian tradition. The problem that Weber articulates is that the Puritan wanted to work in a calling, for his salvation. That "work ethic" was harnessed by capitalism because we have to work, the sale of our labor being the only means to material satisfaction.
Weber's thought was grounded in a belief that history is of critical portance to the social sciences and that material factors had enormous influence upon the course of history — I didn't know any of this, I'm stealing it from the introduction. Weber was very critical of Marxism, but shared with Marx a concern for the evolution of industrialism capitalism. In the first few chapters, Weber defines what he means by capitalism. It's not just the pursuit of wealth that has been common to numerous cultures, but is an activity associated with the rational organization of formally free labor (his italics). Capitalism requires an organized labor force and a ready source of investment capital. Some of these factors were not present in Hindu and Confucian societies. Hinduism, in particular its tradition of caste, prevented the ready organization of the labor force. Also, its emphasis on asceticism focused toward the otherworldly and afterlife, and tended to accentuate the non-material. Trade was highly developed in China as in India, but Confucianism permitted a more material focus. The Calvinist ethic combined Judaism's "ethical prophecy" that encouraged emulation of the prophet with the eastern traditions to form a philosophy of reformation, i.e. achieve salvation through reforming the world by means of economic activity.
The development of the Western city was also important because they provided the foundation for political autonomy and the creation of a bourgeois society. Eastern civilizations were hampered by strong kinship relationships that crossed the agrarian-urban boundaries which tied the cities more firmly to an agrarian tradition. The problem that Weber articulates is that the Puritan wanted to work in a calling, for his salvation. That "work ethic" was harnessed by capitalism because we have to work, the sale of our labor being the only means to material satisfaction.
November 25, 2017
As the (excellent!) introduction explains, after suffering from a depression that lasted years, Max Weber rose up again and published his most important works. Of these, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (1905) is possibly the most famous and the most debated one.
Weber's main thesis can be summarized fairly easily: it was the historical development that Calvinism - and its English offshoots - took hold of the masses that created the conditions for modern capitalism to become what it became. The asceticism of the Calvinist creeds - focused on this world as opposed to Catholic asceticism that was focused on the world after this one - and the notion of a 'calling', combined to form the capitalist ethos of 'work hard, be successful.' Everyone has his or her calling in this life; give all you got in fulfilling this calling in your daily activities; don't be idle or succumb to bodily temptations; accumulating riches through working hard is God's sign of approval.
It is important to note that Weber sees the 'work hard-get rich-be successful'-mentality of the various Calvinist creeds as the historical cause of the rise of capitalism in the West. Only in England, the Netherlands and parts of Germany (especially Prussia) were these essential factors present in society; only in these parts capitalism took root and rose to the levels we know it. In other words: Weber seeks the cause of the impact of capitalism in the shared Calvinist ethics in these area's.
It is also - even more so - important to understand what Weber doesn't mean. He doesn't mean that Calvinism is the sole cause of capitalism (versions of capitalism existed in aincient Egypt, Babylon, China, etc.); he doesn't mean capitalism can only take root in societies with Calvinist ethics (Japan, for example, is a fairly successful capitalist society, without the Calvinist creed being mainstream); he doesn't mean Calvinism leads to capitalism per se.
There has grown up a body of misrespresentations of Weber and one wonders if this is done on purpose. To me, it seems quite obvious what Weber means and he clearly states his aim and the limitations of his theses - multiple times. In essence, Weber looks for a contingent, historical sociological cause of the extremely rapid and successful rise of capitalism in 17th-19th century Northern Europe (especially England and the Netherlands). Nothing more, nothing less.
In the introduction it is mentioned that Weber's book was seen as inflammatory by - let's face it - almost everyone. Catholics felt they were sold short by Weber; protestants (especially Lutherans) felt Weber denied their creeds their historical importance; many Calvinists (in their various creeds) felt Weber misrepresented them; and, lastly, many secularists and atheists felt Weber overemphasized the role of religion in the historical rise of capitalism. In short, anyone with a stake, including atheists, in religion disagreed with Weber's thesis. My own personal feeling is that the (religiously motivated) objection most of these readers felt, is the cause of confusion that has grown around Weber's book.
But let's judge Weber's book by its merits and shortcomings. His thesis is clear and he does explicitly state his reasons for bringing it forward. The downside is that most of Weber's analysis is qualitative. He scrupulously describes all the various Calvinist creeds and explains their stance on things like 'calling', 'asceticism', etc., while contrasting it with Lutheran protestantism and Catholicism.
If Weber is right, one has to be able to conduct a quantitive analysis of the case. This would mean studying the quantitative economical differences (whichever one chooses to use as criteria) between the different countries. This is extremely difficult, though. We don't have a reliable database on 17th century economic facts; we also cannot use current economic facts, since this would mean projecting modern developments into the past. As Weber clearly states, capitalism has by now (he wrote in 1905) spread across the globe; capitalism can be successfully adopted by very different countries. In my opinion, sociology stands or falls with quantitative causal explanations and this is something that Weber doesn't offer us. So his is a good start towards an explanation of why capitalism became so immensely successful when and where it did (17th century England and Holland).
So, Weber's is not a foolproof explanation, and I doubt that we will ever find one. Some historical facts are forever lost to us, since we do not possess the necessary data to make a complete and reliable analysis. Nevertheless, I don't think the various criticisms towards Weber have been genuine and honest; many come from religiously motivated people with specific agendas, so we should do wise and steer clear from them.
(I cannot really recommend this book. It's only 120 pages so one can read this in an afternoon, yet it is extremely detailed in outlining all the different Calvinist creeds. As some Goodreads members mention in the comments section: you can easily get away with reading only the introduction and chapter 5 to get the gist of this book).
Weber's main thesis can be summarized fairly easily: it was the historical development that Calvinism - and its English offshoots - took hold of the masses that created the conditions for modern capitalism to become what it became. The asceticism of the Calvinist creeds - focused on this world as opposed to Catholic asceticism that was focused on the world after this one - and the notion of a 'calling', combined to form the capitalist ethos of 'work hard, be successful.' Everyone has his or her calling in this life; give all you got in fulfilling this calling in your daily activities; don't be idle or succumb to bodily temptations; accumulating riches through working hard is God's sign of approval.
It is important to note that Weber sees the 'work hard-get rich-be successful'-mentality of the various Calvinist creeds as the historical cause of the rise of capitalism in the West. Only in England, the Netherlands and parts of Germany (especially Prussia) were these essential factors present in society; only in these parts capitalism took root and rose to the levels we know it. In other words: Weber seeks the cause of the impact of capitalism in the shared Calvinist ethics in these area's.
It is also - even more so - important to understand what Weber doesn't mean. He doesn't mean that Calvinism is the sole cause of capitalism (versions of capitalism existed in aincient Egypt, Babylon, China, etc.); he doesn't mean capitalism can only take root in societies with Calvinist ethics (Japan, for example, is a fairly successful capitalist society, without the Calvinist creed being mainstream); he doesn't mean Calvinism leads to capitalism per se.
There has grown up a body of misrespresentations of Weber and one wonders if this is done on purpose. To me, it seems quite obvious what Weber means and he clearly states his aim and the limitations of his theses - multiple times. In essence, Weber looks for a contingent, historical sociological cause of the extremely rapid and successful rise of capitalism in 17th-19th century Northern Europe (especially England and the Netherlands). Nothing more, nothing less.
In the introduction it is mentioned that Weber's book was seen as inflammatory by - let's face it - almost everyone. Catholics felt they were sold short by Weber; protestants (especially Lutherans) felt Weber denied their creeds their historical importance; many Calvinists (in their various creeds) felt Weber misrepresented them; and, lastly, many secularists and atheists felt Weber overemphasized the role of religion in the historical rise of capitalism. In short, anyone with a stake, including atheists, in religion disagreed with Weber's thesis. My own personal feeling is that the (religiously motivated) objection most of these readers felt, is the cause of confusion that has grown around Weber's book.
But let's judge Weber's book by its merits and shortcomings. His thesis is clear and he does explicitly state his reasons for bringing it forward. The downside is that most of Weber's analysis is qualitative. He scrupulously describes all the various Calvinist creeds and explains their stance on things like 'calling', 'asceticism', etc., while contrasting it with Lutheran protestantism and Catholicism.
If Weber is right, one has to be able to conduct a quantitive analysis of the case. This would mean studying the quantitative economical differences (whichever one chooses to use as criteria) between the different countries. This is extremely difficult, though. We don't have a reliable database on 17th century economic facts; we also cannot use current economic facts, since this would mean projecting modern developments into the past. As Weber clearly states, capitalism has by now (he wrote in 1905) spread across the globe; capitalism can be successfully adopted by very different countries. In my opinion, sociology stands or falls with quantitative causal explanations and this is something that Weber doesn't offer us. So his is a good start towards an explanation of why capitalism became so immensely successful when and where it did (17th century England and Holland).
So, Weber's is not a foolproof explanation, and I doubt that we will ever find one. Some historical facts are forever lost to us, since we do not possess the necessary data to make a complete and reliable analysis. Nevertheless, I don't think the various criticisms towards Weber have been genuine and honest; many come from religiously motivated people with specific agendas, so we should do wise and steer clear from them.
(I cannot really recommend this book. It's only 120 pages so one can read this in an afternoon, yet it is extremely detailed in outlining all the different Calvinist creeds. As some Goodreads members mention in the comments section: you can easily get away with reading only the introduction and chapter 5 to get the gist of this book).
March 3, 2022
Max Weber’s The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (1905) is a foundational sociological text. Its central thesis is by now well known. Modern Western capitalism owes its development to the influence of Protestant ideals. He proposes to trace back what are in his mind the essential features of modern capitalism to key aspects of what he calls the “Protestant ethic.” Though intriguing, the thesis itself is controversial and only partially convincing. The most enduring contribution of the book lies elsewhere, in its insistence on the need for interpretation in the social sciences. Against the dominant Marxist trend of his time, Weber denied that social phenomena could be explained in strictly economic terms. To understand any given phenomenon, it is necessary to take account not only the material conditions that give it rise, but also of the background of beliefs and practices in which it emerges.
Weber’s analysis starts from a simple empirical observation. There is a strong correlation between capitalism and Protestant Christianity. Not only did capitalism initially emerge in predominantly Protestant nations, but within those nations, owners of capital have themselves been Protestant by an overwhelming margin. The term “capitalism” is thrown around a lot in political discourse and social-scientific study, but is very seldom defined or understood. Weber proposes to define it loosely as a mode of production characterized by the pursuit of ever-renewed profit by means of rational enterprise (xxxii). He maintains that a particular ethos served as the condition of emergence of capitalism. Two features of this ethos are particularly salient. The first is the pursuit of money as an end in itself, detached from the benefits that it confers. The second is the ascetic tendency away from spontaneous enjoyment of life. Together, these form what Weber calls the “spirit of capitalism.” The spirit of capitalism thus understood stands against traditional society with its reliance on habitual modes of production and its instrumental view of labour.
In Weber’s view, certain key beliefs internal to the Protestant worldview served to pave the way for the spirit of capitalism. One such belief is the concept of “the calling.” First introduced by Luther and further developed by Calvin, the concept of the calling elevates duty in worldly affairs to the highest form of moral activity. The world becomes a task placed before us by God. Protestant sermons and publications of the 16th and 17th centuries exalt worldly toil as the sacred duty of the Christian—a position unthinkable to Catholic writers of the medieval period. Another aspect of the protestant worldview lies in the ascetic ethic promulgated by Calvinism, Pietism, Methodism, and Baptism. Although these four strains of Protestantism differ immensely, Weber maintains that they all share certain crucial features during the period under examination. During the period under examination, members of all four are strongly preoccupied by the need to know their state of grace and see the methodical organization of a life in labour as an indication that they belong to the saved. Wasting time becomes a capital sin. It is a very short step from here to the capitalist slogan that “time is money.”
Weber’s analysis of the Protestant ethic has been the object of controversy since its publication in 1905. It has been attacked by Marxist opponents for neglecting economic factors, questioned by historians for misrepresenting the origins of capitalism and criticized by various theorists for that sin of sins of the Postmodern era, “essentialism.” In fact, however, his analysis stands up surprisingly well. The book unquestionably contains certain factual inaccuracies, some of which are highlighted by Talcott Parsons in his excellent preface. Nonetheless, Weber’s analysis is remarkably nuanced. He draws attention to the limitations of his study at every turn and is acutely aware that it can operate only on the level of generalization. The running critique of Marxist analysis throughout is especially interesting. Contemporary readers approaching Weber for the first time with an education in the humanities and social sciences may have some difficulty understanding what the fuss is about. Nearly a century after the publication of Martin Heidegger’s Being and Time (1927) and over half a century after Hans Georg Gadamer’s Truth and Method (1960), the need for hermeneutics in social theory may seem so obvious as to be self-evident. If this is so, however, it is due in no small part to Weber's groundbreaking work here. If for no other reason, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism remains indispensable to anyone interested in the history of social thought.
Weber’s analysis starts from a simple empirical observation. There is a strong correlation between capitalism and Protestant Christianity. Not only did capitalism initially emerge in predominantly Protestant nations, but within those nations, owners of capital have themselves been Protestant by an overwhelming margin. The term “capitalism” is thrown around a lot in political discourse and social-scientific study, but is very seldom defined or understood. Weber proposes to define it loosely as a mode of production characterized by the pursuit of ever-renewed profit by means of rational enterprise (xxxii). He maintains that a particular ethos served as the condition of emergence of capitalism. Two features of this ethos are particularly salient. The first is the pursuit of money as an end in itself, detached from the benefits that it confers. The second is the ascetic tendency away from spontaneous enjoyment of life. Together, these form what Weber calls the “spirit of capitalism.” The spirit of capitalism thus understood stands against traditional society with its reliance on habitual modes of production and its instrumental view of labour.
In Weber’s view, certain key beliefs internal to the Protestant worldview served to pave the way for the spirit of capitalism. One such belief is the concept of “the calling.” First introduced by Luther and further developed by Calvin, the concept of the calling elevates duty in worldly affairs to the highest form of moral activity. The world becomes a task placed before us by God. Protestant sermons and publications of the 16th and 17th centuries exalt worldly toil as the sacred duty of the Christian—a position unthinkable to Catholic writers of the medieval period. Another aspect of the protestant worldview lies in the ascetic ethic promulgated by Calvinism, Pietism, Methodism, and Baptism. Although these four strains of Protestantism differ immensely, Weber maintains that they all share certain crucial features during the period under examination. During the period under examination, members of all four are strongly preoccupied by the need to know their state of grace and see the methodical organization of a life in labour as an indication that they belong to the saved. Wasting time becomes a capital sin. It is a very short step from here to the capitalist slogan that “time is money.”
Weber’s analysis of the Protestant ethic has been the object of controversy since its publication in 1905. It has been attacked by Marxist opponents for neglecting economic factors, questioned by historians for misrepresenting the origins of capitalism and criticized by various theorists for that sin of sins of the Postmodern era, “essentialism.” In fact, however, his analysis stands up surprisingly well. The book unquestionably contains certain factual inaccuracies, some of which are highlighted by Talcott Parsons in his excellent preface. Nonetheless, Weber’s analysis is remarkably nuanced. He draws attention to the limitations of his study at every turn and is acutely aware that it can operate only on the level of generalization. The running critique of Marxist analysis throughout is especially interesting. Contemporary readers approaching Weber for the first time with an education in the humanities and social sciences may have some difficulty understanding what the fuss is about. Nearly a century after the publication of Martin Heidegger’s Being and Time (1927) and over half a century after Hans Georg Gadamer’s Truth and Method (1960), the need for hermeneutics in social theory may seem so obvious as to be self-evident. If this is so, however, it is due in no small part to Weber's groundbreaking work here. If for no other reason, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism remains indispensable to anyone interested in the history of social thought.
January 23, 2021
"if we now combine the strictures against consumption with this unchaining of the striving for wealth, a certain external result now becomes visible, the formation of capital through asceticism's compulsive saving" (117)
A canonical work in Social Theory, which quotes Goethe and Benjamin Franklin as much as it does academic sources, Weber's dry analysis of culture aims to explain why Protestantism seems to be so popular amongst successful capitalists. For Weber the answer is that Protestantism engenders a certain spirit, a capitalist spirit which has an elective affinity with modern capitalism (capitalism based on the accumulation and constant expansion of capital). Whilst dull, repetitive and dated, this work is key for its influence on subsequent sociologists (Robert Michels, Georg Lukàcs, the Frankfurt School etc) as well as due to its place as a response to the Marxist theory of the role of culture in class society (although his name isn't mentioned).
Chapter 1 - Weber examines the occupational statistics noting how Catholics appear to be less successful capitalists than their Protestant compatriots. Weber blames this on the death of economic traditionalism and resistance to traditional religious authority (4).
Chapter 2 - Weber explains the 'Spirit of Capitalism', which is the simple notion that "people live for business rather than the reverse" (31). This for Weber is the rationalised, religious way of organising life, and key to the development of Capitalism.
Chapter 3 - Luther's concept of the 'Calling' is studied by Weber. Weber explains that the reformation birthed the Lutheran conception that one lives for a purpose, and must work studiously at this purpose, labouring for God ascetically, worshipping the 'this-worldy' aspect of their endeavours. Since Calvinists hold that a sign of their entry to heaven is rooted in their success on Earth, they plunge all of their energy into accumulating capital and expanding their own empires, whilst shunning ostentation and earthly pleasure that would usually distract the wealthy classes.
Chapter 4 - This chapter sees Weber explicating the "four major historical carriers of ascetic Protestantism", which are Western European Calvinists, Pietists, Methodists, and the sects birthed from Baptists (Mennonites, Quakers etc) (53).
Chapter 5 - The final and most important chapter, which I recommend you read if you're too impatient to sit through this dry text, simply concludes with Weber's final point summarising how "the formation of capital [arose] through asceticism's compulsive saving" (117).
A canonical work in Social Theory, which quotes Goethe and Benjamin Franklin as much as it does academic sources, Weber's dry analysis of culture aims to explain why Protestantism seems to be so popular amongst successful capitalists. For Weber the answer is that Protestantism engenders a certain spirit, a capitalist spirit which has an elective affinity with modern capitalism (capitalism based on the accumulation and constant expansion of capital). Whilst dull, repetitive and dated, this work is key for its influence on subsequent sociologists (Robert Michels, Georg Lukàcs, the Frankfurt School etc) as well as due to its place as a response to the Marxist theory of the role of culture in class society (although his name isn't mentioned).
Chapter 1 - Weber examines the occupational statistics noting how Catholics appear to be less successful capitalists than their Protestant compatriots. Weber blames this on the death of economic traditionalism and resistance to traditional religious authority (4).
Chapter 2 - Weber explains the 'Spirit of Capitalism', which is the simple notion that "people live for business rather than the reverse" (31). This for Weber is the rationalised, religious way of organising life, and key to the development of Capitalism.
Chapter 3 - Luther's concept of the 'Calling' is studied by Weber. Weber explains that the reformation birthed the Lutheran conception that one lives for a purpose, and must work studiously at this purpose, labouring for God ascetically, worshipping the 'this-worldy' aspect of their endeavours. Since Calvinists hold that a sign of their entry to heaven is rooted in their success on Earth, they plunge all of their energy into accumulating capital and expanding their own empires, whilst shunning ostentation and earthly pleasure that would usually distract the wealthy classes.
Chapter 4 - This chapter sees Weber explicating the "four major historical carriers of ascetic Protestantism", which are Western European Calvinists, Pietists, Methodists, and the sects birthed from Baptists (Mennonites, Quakers etc) (53).
Chapter 5 - The final and most important chapter, which I recommend you read if you're too impatient to sit through this dry text, simply concludes with Weber's final point summarising how "the formation of capital [arose] through asceticism's compulsive saving" (117).
July 5, 2021
Weber flips Marx - as Marx flipped Hegel - and makes the argument that there is an ideological/religious influence on capitalism and economics. The protestants (in particular the Calvinists and other ascetic branches), in their quest to overcome the uncertainties of predestination, engage in work and enterprise understood as callings from God. The approach is purely rational and the economic gain is a sign of God's favor. This is contrasted with the traditional ascetic approach of the monk or saint who cut himself from the world in prayer and in material dependence from others - while he was convinced that this is the way to obtain God's favor and salvation. This replacement of common greed - as the basis of capitalism - with asceticism understood as rational profit-seeking and unflinching dedication in a calling, profoundly changed and promoted modern capitalism. As Weber hints at the end of the book, the problem is that capitalism along with its excessive material abundance disenchants the world and turns against the spiritual drive that started it; that is - Marx is having the last word here.
December 24, 2013
الكتاب يقدم فكرة عميقة حول علاقة البروتستانتيةبالرأسمالية الغربية..و قد قرأت الفكرة قبل ذلك في كتاب ،المسيري(دراسات معرفية في الحداثة الغربية) بشكل أكثر وضوحاً وتنظيماً ،بل وتطوراً وتركيباً، وهي هنا بتفاصيل كثيرة عن المذهب البروتستانتي وشعائره وطقوسه
ما خرجت منه من هذا الكتاب:
1.نموذج لتحليل الظواهر ، و الذي يتكون من وجود بنية فكرية أولاً ، يمكن دراستها من النصوص ، ثم سلوكيات ترتبط بهذه البنية
2.فكرة الكتاب الرئيسية و التي تؤكد أن روح الرأسمالية هي نتيجة لعوامل كيرة أهمها البروتستانتية و التي تجعل العمل، وتراكم المال أحد الفضائل الدينية ، ويترافق معها تقشف و رفض للمتع الدنيوية
3.في رأيي أن الظاهر البروتستانية ظاهرة متكررة لدى عدد من المجتمعات، ففي بعض المجتمعات العربية توجد مثل هذه البنية الفكرية ،والسلوكيات مع وجود اختلافات ثقافية ، و برأيي أن دراسة مثل هذه المجتمعات من الممكن أن يثري الفكرة،..والمكتبة العربية
ما خرجت منه من هذا الكتاب:
1.نموذج لتحليل الظواهر ، و الذي يتكون من وجود بنية فكرية أولاً ، يمكن دراستها من النصوص ، ثم سلوكيات ترتبط بهذه البنية
2.فكرة الكتاب الرئيسية و التي تؤكد أن روح الرأسمالية هي نتيجة لعوامل كيرة أهمها البروتستانتية و التي تجعل العمل، وتراكم المال أحد الفضائل الدينية ، ويترافق معها تقشف و رفض للمتع الدنيوية
3.في رأيي أن الظاهر البروتستانية ظاهرة متكررة لدى عدد من المجتمعات، ففي بعض المجتمعات العربية توجد مثل هذه البنية الفكرية ،والسلوكيات مع وجود اختلافات ثقافية ، و برأيي أن دراسة مثل هذه المجتمعات من الممكن أن يثري الفكرة،..والمكتبة العربية
September 7, 2016
In “The Protestant Ethic and the ‘Spirit’ of Capitalism,” Max Weber explores the relationship between certain religious characteristics of Protestantism and the “spirit,” or “ethos”, of capitalism. He argues certain sects of Protestantism, primarily Calvinism, played a central role in capitalism’s eventual cultural dominance. Weber begins with the observation that Protestants overwhelmingly comprise the business elite and skilled labor force in comparison to Catholics. According to Weber, this is true across all nationalities. However, Weber accredits this trend to the religious characteristics of Protestantism and its worldview. For the rest of his book, he seeks to defend the causality between these two phenomenon.
In order to understand Weber’s thesis, it is necessary to grasp what he means by the “spirit” of capitalism. Weber does not examine capitalism through concrete data about economic markets or trends. Rather, he defines the “spirit” of capitalism as “a complex of configurations in historical reality which we group together conceptually from the point of view of their cultural significance to form a whole.” According to Weber, this conception is not a singular definition but is instead an “illustration” of a kind of an ethos. He focuses on capitalism as a cultural phenomenon, one that emphasizes the pursuit of profit as a virtuous end. The ethic of this spirit is the “making of money coupled with strict avoidance of all uninhibited enjoyment.” Weber argues that it was not accepted by society quite easily. Rather, the capitalist spirit had to overcome the influence of “traditionalism” in society. Traditionalism emphasized that people should work only insofar as it allowed them to live simply and traditionally. It did not encourage the growth of productivity or wealth. Although capitalism can also sometimes espouse traditionalist behavior, the development of the capitalist spirit is part of “a total development of rationalism and must be derived from the fundamental attitudes towards the problem of life."
Weber asserts that the rationalist foundation underlying the capitalist spirit is derived from the Protestant idea of a “calling.” Weber’s understanding of the calling relates to the German word “Beruf” which, like the English word, means a duty or obligation that is derived from religion or God. Weber explains that the idea of a calling was central to Luther’s movement. Luther’s calling asserts that each individual has a call to abide by a worldly station or activity. Fulfilling worldly obligations was central to being obedient to God’s will. However, Weber contends that the link between Protestant asceticism and the spirit of capitalism cannot be fully located in Luther’s views. Instead, he turns to Calvinism and Puritanism. Calvinism’s doctrine primarily adopts predestination as its foundational theology. Calvinists believe that God ordains an “elect” group of people to be saved while everyone else is destined for hell. We can never ascertain who is part of God’s elect. Instead, since all individuals (saved or not) exist for the sake of God’s justice, they must end up assuming that they are saved and nonetheless try to carry out God’s will.
The Calvinist doctrine, according to Weber, created devastating effects on individuals’ psychological well-being by causing “unprecedented inner loneliness.” Calvinists are known, in fact, for rejecting sensual and tempting elements of culture. Regardless, Weber praises Calvinism for its formulations of a “logically consist” and “rationalized” form of self-control and ethics. Weber’s emphasis on Calvinism’s “rationalism” colors his discussion of other sects. In particular, compares the relationship between emotional and ascetic practices in Pietism, Methodism, and Baptists. He argues that the Puritan idea of a calling is present within these sects’ emphasis on “systematic” obedience to God’s will. Weber is far more critical of these branches of Protestantism, but he argues that all of Protestantism’s variations emphasize the necessity of completing practical work in order to fulfill one’s religious duties.
In the final chapter, Weber returns to his main thesis regarding the relationship between Protestantism and the development of capitalism. Weber argues that Christian asceticism gave way to the idea of a calling, which in turn provided the basis of a “rational conduct of life.” Asceticism pushed people away from “monastic cells” and inner worldliness and towards “working life.” The capitalist tendency towards “uniformity” and the “standardization” of production would have never been possible without the “spiritual” idea that the ego and its desires should be fully rejected. Thus, the pervasiveness of Puritanism was the vehicle for “rational” economic development. The spirit of capitalism itself does not religious values, but the spread of certain spiritual ideas lead to its pervasiveness.
I appreciate Weber’s work for its attempt to explain how powerful social and cultural institutions have arisen directly out of religious ideas. Weber’s work was certainly foundational for modern sociological thought and methodology. However, as a student of religions, I found Weber’s arguments rather frustrating. Weber repeatedly notes that his accounts of various phenomenon are incomplete, but many of his discussions around cultural and religious ideas are entirely off-base. It is quite hard to prove that any form of religious practice or cultural symbol is “logically consistent” or “rational.” For example, his assertion that Puritans were not interested in the supernatural clearly overlooks the fact that Puritanical laws were obsessed with witchcraft and forms of paganism. Moreover, much recent scholarship has shown that Puritanism was not devoid of emotional religious experience to the extent that Weber asserts. Perhaps if Weber paid greater attention to the lived experiences of the religions he glorifies and condemns I would be less skeptical of his descriptions. Ultimately, he lacks proper case studies and descriptions of the lived experiences of Calvinists, Catholics, and other sects of Protestantism to back up his observations.
Regardless of these flaws, Weber’s work is an interesting response to Marxist theory. Weber reasons that religion is a motivator for capitalism whereas Marx would argue that economic positions are the sole determinant of evolving human institutions (including religion). Weber dramatically opposes Marx’s reductionist philosophy by affirming the power of religion and its ideas. Although many such ideas, such as Luther’s calling, transform in meaning and influence over time, Weber contends that these ideas carry enormous power in generating other social, economic, or cultural forces. Thus, despite my frustrations with Weber, I have respect for his work and its influence on later philosophies related to cultural hegemony and legitimacy.
In order to understand Weber’s thesis, it is necessary to grasp what he means by the “spirit” of capitalism. Weber does not examine capitalism through concrete data about economic markets or trends. Rather, he defines the “spirit” of capitalism as “a complex of configurations in historical reality which we group together conceptually from the point of view of their cultural significance to form a whole.” According to Weber, this conception is not a singular definition but is instead an “illustration” of a kind of an ethos. He focuses on capitalism as a cultural phenomenon, one that emphasizes the pursuit of profit as a virtuous end. The ethic of this spirit is the “making of money coupled with strict avoidance of all uninhibited enjoyment.” Weber argues that it was not accepted by society quite easily. Rather, the capitalist spirit had to overcome the influence of “traditionalism” in society. Traditionalism emphasized that people should work only insofar as it allowed them to live simply and traditionally. It did not encourage the growth of productivity or wealth. Although capitalism can also sometimes espouse traditionalist behavior, the development of the capitalist spirit is part of “a total development of rationalism and must be derived from the fundamental attitudes towards the problem of life."
Weber asserts that the rationalist foundation underlying the capitalist spirit is derived from the Protestant idea of a “calling.” Weber’s understanding of the calling relates to the German word “Beruf” which, like the English word, means a duty or obligation that is derived from religion or God. Weber explains that the idea of a calling was central to Luther’s movement. Luther’s calling asserts that each individual has a call to abide by a worldly station or activity. Fulfilling worldly obligations was central to being obedient to God’s will. However, Weber contends that the link between Protestant asceticism and the spirit of capitalism cannot be fully located in Luther’s views. Instead, he turns to Calvinism and Puritanism. Calvinism’s doctrine primarily adopts predestination as its foundational theology. Calvinists believe that God ordains an “elect” group of people to be saved while everyone else is destined for hell. We can never ascertain who is part of God’s elect. Instead, since all individuals (saved or not) exist for the sake of God’s justice, they must end up assuming that they are saved and nonetheless try to carry out God’s will.
The Calvinist doctrine, according to Weber, created devastating effects on individuals’ psychological well-being by causing “unprecedented inner loneliness.” Calvinists are known, in fact, for rejecting sensual and tempting elements of culture. Regardless, Weber praises Calvinism for its formulations of a “logically consist” and “rationalized” form of self-control and ethics. Weber’s emphasis on Calvinism’s “rationalism” colors his discussion of other sects. In particular, compares the relationship between emotional and ascetic practices in Pietism, Methodism, and Baptists. He argues that the Puritan idea of a calling is present within these sects’ emphasis on “systematic” obedience to God’s will. Weber is far more critical of these branches of Protestantism, but he argues that all of Protestantism’s variations emphasize the necessity of completing practical work in order to fulfill one’s religious duties.
In the final chapter, Weber returns to his main thesis regarding the relationship between Protestantism and the development of capitalism. Weber argues that Christian asceticism gave way to the idea of a calling, which in turn provided the basis of a “rational conduct of life.” Asceticism pushed people away from “monastic cells” and inner worldliness and towards “working life.” The capitalist tendency towards “uniformity” and the “standardization” of production would have never been possible without the “spiritual” idea that the ego and its desires should be fully rejected. Thus, the pervasiveness of Puritanism was the vehicle for “rational” economic development. The spirit of capitalism itself does not religious values, but the spread of certain spiritual ideas lead to its pervasiveness.
I appreciate Weber’s work for its attempt to explain how powerful social and cultural institutions have arisen directly out of religious ideas. Weber’s work was certainly foundational for modern sociological thought and methodology. However, as a student of religions, I found Weber’s arguments rather frustrating. Weber repeatedly notes that his accounts of various phenomenon are incomplete, but many of his discussions around cultural and religious ideas are entirely off-base. It is quite hard to prove that any form of religious practice or cultural symbol is “logically consistent” or “rational.” For example, his assertion that Puritans were not interested in the supernatural clearly overlooks the fact that Puritanical laws were obsessed with witchcraft and forms of paganism. Moreover, much recent scholarship has shown that Puritanism was not devoid of emotional religious experience to the extent that Weber asserts. Perhaps if Weber paid greater attention to the lived experiences of the religions he glorifies and condemns I would be less skeptical of his descriptions. Ultimately, he lacks proper case studies and descriptions of the lived experiences of Calvinists, Catholics, and other sects of Protestantism to back up his observations.
Regardless of these flaws, Weber’s work is an interesting response to Marxist theory. Weber reasons that religion is a motivator for capitalism whereas Marx would argue that economic positions are the sole determinant of evolving human institutions (including religion). Weber dramatically opposes Marx’s reductionist philosophy by affirming the power of religion and its ideas. Although many such ideas, such as Luther’s calling, transform in meaning and influence over time, Weber contends that these ideas carry enormous power in generating other social, economic, or cultural forces. Thus, despite my frustrations with Weber, I have respect for his work and its influence on later philosophies related to cultural hegemony and legitimacy.
July 9, 2023
Terribly interesting. I really enjoy Weber's expository style (at least as translated by Parsons): it kind of felt like I was reading Allan Bloom or Alasdair MacIntyre, who both cite Weber a lot, so maybe that's not an invalid response. I like his thesis. Sure, there are flaws, and he tries to err so much on the side of caution in his generalizations that it can be a bit tough to know what exactly he's trying to assert, but I think there is a lot of merit to what he says about the logical consequences of Calvinism and pietism in action, and I'm a bit surprised that his thesis has become one of the most discussed talking points of the century because I don't find it especially polemical, but I suppose this is so because secularists don't want to give religion that level of credit for something that has undeniably resulted in much good, and Protestants believe that Weber misrepresents them (kind of ironic considering the love of capitalism by so many). Much discussion is also probably due to people associating the "spirit of capitalism" as Weber defines it with something it's not. Although it could definitely be argued that the increasingly ramshackle, disintegrating state of contemporary capitalism is an offshoot of the Protestant ethic, we must remember that Weber wrote at the turn of the century, which was also a time when Marx was not widely read or known—it's remarkable how much of our thinking is really indebted to Marx when we consider it.
Weber is admirably neutral in his analysis, as well as concise. However, I didn't really get into the essay until he started actually discussing Luther, Calvin, and their offspring; which is a truly fascinating theological survey in its own right. His most upsetting point to Protestants is the idea that Reformed theology generates "works-based" living. Though this can be tough to swallow at first, it makes perfect sense once you dwell on it. In all fairness, I actively oppose the doctrine of unconditional election, and do not see how the Christian ethos could be truthfully interpreted through that lens (I'm not an Arminian either...I think that both sides put God in a box, and that's why Lutheranism exists as a return to true catholic doctrine ;). I think Weber's analysis could be a legitimate refutation of hard Calvinism and a vindication of the idea that the Reformation was somewhat of a necessary evil that moved further away from its original intentions the deeper it spread into Europe, and an influence that is both indispensable to our contemporary ideals of flourishing and detrimental to classical ideals. However, would Weber say that we should honor it instead of criticizing it because it produced the most flourishing economic conditions in the world? This is the central paradox of capitalism, so there is much food for thought here. Very high up on the list of 20th century works you should read to be an educated human. However, I would STRONGLY recommend you read, minimally, Luther and Calvin before Weber, because otherwise you'll only be able to see them through Weberian glasses.
Weber is admirably neutral in his analysis, as well as concise. However, I didn't really get into the essay until he started actually discussing Luther, Calvin, and their offspring; which is a truly fascinating theological survey in its own right. His most upsetting point to Protestants is the idea that Reformed theology generates "works-based" living. Though this can be tough to swallow at first, it makes perfect sense once you dwell on it. In all fairness, I actively oppose the doctrine of unconditional election, and do not see how the Christian ethos could be truthfully interpreted through that lens (I'm not an Arminian either...I think that both sides put God in a box, and that's why Lutheranism exists as a return to true catholic doctrine ;). I think Weber's analysis could be a legitimate refutation of hard Calvinism and a vindication of the idea that the Reformation was somewhat of a necessary evil that moved further away from its original intentions the deeper it spread into Europe, and an influence that is both indispensable to our contemporary ideals of flourishing and detrimental to classical ideals. However, would Weber say that we should honor it instead of criticizing it because it produced the most flourishing economic conditions in the world? This is the central paradox of capitalism, so there is much food for thought here. Very high up on the list of 20th century works you should read to be an educated human. However, I would STRONGLY recommend you read, minimally, Luther and Calvin before Weber, because otherwise you'll only be able to see them through Weberian glasses.
June 22, 2024
Weber tries to disprove materialist theories for the origin of capitalism (the specter of Marx haunts him, though he goes unnamed). He tries to show that it is Puritan asceticism, above all Calvinism, that accounts for the rise of industrial capitalism (as opposed to mere commerce). I'm not convinced.
Weber's is a vibes based approach. He remarks again and again that Protestantism reigns wherever capitalism is strongest, which was true at the time and therefore not insignificant, but nowhere does he show specifically that Protestantism was the motive force behind its rise. There is no quantitative data. In fact, there are only a handful of quotes from Puritan theologians about the connection between religion and commerce.
Nonetheless, Weber is on to something. The asceticism of the Puritans lives on: my Instagram feed is full of con artists exhorting me to hustle, to grind, to make 200 cold calls while my friends waste their lives at the club. A Christian mom-fluencer bemoans something that "women of faith aren't willing to talk about": that living in lack is Satanic!
Capitalism made a world where Puritanism, shorn (mostly) of its religious language, has proven to be an especially useful tool for all of us, not just the bourgeois. We're all Calvinists now.
Weber's is a vibes based approach. He remarks again and again that Protestantism reigns wherever capitalism is strongest, which was true at the time and therefore not insignificant, but nowhere does he show specifically that Protestantism was the motive force behind its rise. There is no quantitative data. In fact, there are only a handful of quotes from Puritan theologians about the connection between religion and commerce.
Nonetheless, Weber is on to something. The asceticism of the Puritans lives on: my Instagram feed is full of con artists exhorting me to hustle, to grind, to make 200 cold calls while my friends waste their lives at the club. A Christian mom-fluencer bemoans something that "women of faith aren't willing to talk about": that living in lack is Satanic!
Capitalism made a world where Puritanism, shorn (mostly) of its religious language, has proven to be an especially useful tool for all of us, not just the bourgeois. We're all Calvinists now.
October 18, 2018
In this masterpiece of the social sciences, Max Weber puts forth a multifactorial analysis for the relationship between the origins of capitalism and transformations in the religious, social, and economic attitudes of Protestants regarding the concept of profession or vocation (Beruf). Weber argues that the "spirit of capitalism" is rooted in the belief that worldly work is a virtue in and of itself, epitomized by the dictum of Benjamin Franklin that "time is money."
He traces the transformation of the concept of vocation through the revolutionary use of relevant German language in the Luther translation of the Bible and through its various peregrinations through numerous Protestant sects, down to the early 20th century, at which point, he argues, the concept of the intrinsic value of work persists, though its original motivating spiritual impulse has long since faded.
Elements of Weber's theory struck me as fascinating, brilliantly-conceived, and powerfully argued. I was very impressed by his insistence on employing multiple techniques in analyzing economics, theology, philosophy, history, and sociology in tandem to unpack complex historical questions - it's a refreshing exception to the all-too-common disciplinary binders we find among specialists, or worse - the tendency in German thought toward unified overarching theories or systems.
I'm not in a position to analyze his arguments on their empirical merits, but to a large degree that is beside the point. As the authors put it in their excellent introduction, "'The Protestant Ethic' has perennially survived in American sociology, and in other national traditions, too, not because of its ostensible veracity but because of its utility: "its protean aptitude ... to act as a catalyst of hypotheses or vehicle of multiple projects that have little to do with the impulse that originally animated it."
I began with Talcott Parson's translation, but found it rather unreadable. Despite his importance as an original thinker in his own right, he is a mediocre translator, and I would enthusiastically recommend the Peter Baehr and Gordon Wells Penguin Classics edition instead. It is far more readable.
He traces the transformation of the concept of vocation through the revolutionary use of relevant German language in the Luther translation of the Bible and through its various peregrinations through numerous Protestant sects, down to the early 20th century, at which point, he argues, the concept of the intrinsic value of work persists, though its original motivating spiritual impulse has long since faded.
Elements of Weber's theory struck me as fascinating, brilliantly-conceived, and powerfully argued. I was very impressed by his insistence on employing multiple techniques in analyzing economics, theology, philosophy, history, and sociology in tandem to unpack complex historical questions - it's a refreshing exception to the all-too-common disciplinary binders we find among specialists, or worse - the tendency in German thought toward unified overarching theories or systems.
I'm not in a position to analyze his arguments on their empirical merits, but to a large degree that is beside the point. As the authors put it in their excellent introduction, "'The Protestant Ethic' has perennially survived in American sociology, and in other national traditions, too, not because of its ostensible veracity but because of its utility: "its protean aptitude ... to act as a catalyst of hypotheses or vehicle of multiple projects that have little to do with the impulse that originally animated it."
I began with Talcott Parson's translation, but found it rather unreadable. Despite his importance as an original thinker in his own right, he is a mediocre translator, and I would enthusiastically recommend the Peter Baehr and Gordon Wells Penguin Classics edition instead. It is far more readable.
September 24, 2024
Revisiting Max Weber's Case for Faith as a Driving Force
I first read Max Weber—or attempted to read Weber's classic—in German as an undergraduate. Our instructor mercifully let us switch to a couple of other German classics to prove our proficiency in German—thank goodness! But, Max Weber came roaring back in a graduate course of study in ethnography as part of my journalism studies over the years. And, then, when I became a Religion Editor for Knight Ridder newspapers, Weber kept popping up here and there over the decades.
A few weeks ago, I was helping to edit a chapter in an upcoming book that—yes, again!—cited Weber and it occurred to me that I probably should read the classic again. So, I did.
In quick shorthand for Goodreads friends: Weber is the German sociologist (1864-1920) most famous for arguments fostering the claim that a "Protestant Work Ethic" was behind the rise of Western capitalism.
And here are a few things you may not know about Weber and the phrase:
First, Weber did not limit himself to research into the influence of Christian denominations on the social, political and economic development of nations. He went on later to explore other world religions and other parts of the world.
Second, as a journalist who has covered world religions for 50 years, now, anyone who tries to read Webers' works today needs to realize that he wrote most of his books based on historical analysis. I other words, he was looking way back at the roots of various religions and religious offshoots. He was not an ethnographer actually doing field research on contemporary faith communities. So, you have to consider his theories in light of how well he parsed the history he was considering. And therein lies some pretty fascinating debates readers can have with Weber if you know your religious history.
Third, Weber never argued that leaders of the Protestant Reformation produced modern capitalism. In fact, he made a lot of distinctions between various Protestant groups and their love-hate relationship with how Western nations developed. And, in fact, one of the surprises in his book is how much time he spends writing about Benjamin Franklin! Weber truly was an eclectic and wide ranging thinker as he penned his magnum opus.
Fourth, a helpful way to understand the importance of Weber is to consider his work as a counter, let's say, to Karl Marx. In his analysis of Western history, Marx argued that it was economic forces themselves that produced the problems of capitalism. In this context, Weber was posing a radical counter argument that, hey, religious movements may have played a major role in producing the "modern world" (or what passed for that a century or so ago when Weber was writing). Weber's analysis takes on a much deeper value—arguing that studies of people's faith lives may actually be keys to understanding the world in which we live.
We may not agree with everything in Weber's most famous book, today. I certainly took issue with a host of assertions, but I do recognize in Weber's work a kindred spirit closely aligned to journalists today who specialize in covering religious faith, culture and movements as a way to understand our troubled world, today.
I'm posting this review in Goodreads in the chance that a friend may spot this review and think: Oh, wow! I hadn't even thought of actually reading Max Weber! Maybe I should get a copy of his most famous book and get a feeling for what he actually wrote.
I first read Max Weber—or attempted to read Weber's classic—in German as an undergraduate. Our instructor mercifully let us switch to a couple of other German classics to prove our proficiency in German—thank goodness! But, Max Weber came roaring back in a graduate course of study in ethnography as part of my journalism studies over the years. And, then, when I became a Religion Editor for Knight Ridder newspapers, Weber kept popping up here and there over the decades.
A few weeks ago, I was helping to edit a chapter in an upcoming book that—yes, again!—cited Weber and it occurred to me that I probably should read the classic again. So, I did.
In quick shorthand for Goodreads friends: Weber is the German sociologist (1864-1920) most famous for arguments fostering the claim that a "Protestant Work Ethic" was behind the rise of Western capitalism.
And here are a few things you may not know about Weber and the phrase:
First, Weber did not limit himself to research into the influence of Christian denominations on the social, political and economic development of nations. He went on later to explore other world religions and other parts of the world.
Second, as a journalist who has covered world religions for 50 years, now, anyone who tries to read Webers' works today needs to realize that he wrote most of his books based on historical analysis. I other words, he was looking way back at the roots of various religions and religious offshoots. He was not an ethnographer actually doing field research on contemporary faith communities. So, you have to consider his theories in light of how well he parsed the history he was considering. And therein lies some pretty fascinating debates readers can have with Weber if you know your religious history.
Third, Weber never argued that leaders of the Protestant Reformation produced modern capitalism. In fact, he made a lot of distinctions between various Protestant groups and their love-hate relationship with how Western nations developed. And, in fact, one of the surprises in his book is how much time he spends writing about Benjamin Franklin! Weber truly was an eclectic and wide ranging thinker as he penned his magnum opus.
Fourth, a helpful way to understand the importance of Weber is to consider his work as a counter, let's say, to Karl Marx. In his analysis of Western history, Marx argued that it was economic forces themselves that produced the problems of capitalism. In this context, Weber was posing a radical counter argument that, hey, religious movements may have played a major role in producing the "modern world" (or what passed for that a century or so ago when Weber was writing). Weber's analysis takes on a much deeper value—arguing that studies of people's faith lives may actually be keys to understanding the world in which we live.
We may not agree with everything in Weber's most famous book, today. I certainly took issue with a host of assertions, but I do recognize in Weber's work a kindred spirit closely aligned to journalists today who specialize in covering religious faith, culture and movements as a way to understand our troubled world, today.
I'm posting this review in Goodreads in the chance that a friend may spot this review and think: Oh, wow! I hadn't even thought of actually reading Max Weber! Maybe I should get a copy of his most famous book and get a feeling for what he actually wrote.
January 27, 2023
There is a sanctimonious self-superior attitude that is presented in this book in a matter-of-fact way.
The spirit of capitalism and everything that is good about it just as Benjamin Franklin claims it is, and is taken as a given by this author with the protestants original roots for prioritizing hard-work, fair play, and prayer makes them superior to those swarthy Italians or the papist French with their focus on eternal rewards verse the natural superiority of the thrifty protestants.
[note: Weber doesn’t say ‘swarthy’ or ‘papist’, he just takes it as a given that they aren’t like him. Why did I use the word ‘swarthy’, because at one time Time Magazine would always say ‘swarthy Italian’ when describing Italians just as Will Durant does in his opus on Civilizations and it's such an effective way of letting one’s racism sneak in, and Weber definitely has unearned pride in his ethno-centric way of thinking about the world. Also, clearly unfettered capitalism is dangerous and will lead to exploitation and alienation and even with the ‘spirit of capitalism’ advocated by Benjamin Franklin women were second class human beings grossly underpaid or utilized, Jews were marginalized and Blacks were enslaved. By default Weber is saying protestant values are superior to the Catholics, at least they are more productive under capitalism according to him].
American Firsters will easily take the concepts from this book and will create an imaginary superior species and call them WASP (white Anglo-Saxon Protestants) and claim superior status over the other. I grew up in the 1960s, I saw it happen. Today MAGA tweaks this formula and makes their values superior to all non-MAGA. Yes, I am intolerant towards MAGA, because tolerance is not necessary towards fascist or those who are not tolerant towards me.
Weber uses the word rational only for things that support his thesis. For him, rational thought is only in reference to what supports his ethnocentric point of view. Capitalism is rational and protestant values are rational because he says they are, not quite realizing that he is justifying (rationalizing) his positions because they are part of his worldview, just as his 'spirit of capitalism' must be rational because he says it is. For him, hard-work, fair-play, and prayer are ends in themselves in as much as they 'rationally' lead to earthly prosperity. Weber's book is a masterpiece at self-deception, and deserves to be read for that reason alone.
Weber’s theory is dismissed today by almost all academics. That does not mean that this book is not a fun read in itself and for itself. He really does give a great look at how a German thought about the superiority of themselves and the history that brought them there. This book excels at showing how somebody thought about the history that made them, and that makes this book well worth reading today, and besides who among us doesn’t love a book that makes us (WASP) seem so much superior to the rest of the world and re-enforces are own thought of superiority over all others. Weber just assumes the ‘occident’ is superior by giving generalities explaining why the ‘orient’ is not as good.
When one teleologically explains the present by shaping the past, one will always conclude things had to happen the way they did because today’s reality is. There is no disputing our today. Weber starts with the certainty of his reality and explains it by shaping it. Weber did say one thing that surprised me, that the protestants have less magic than the Catholics. Has he never been to a Baptist church and hear them preach? I have. Magic is everywhere within a Baptist church, it is within the sermon, the congregation, and their beliefs.
Sure, this book is full of an incoherent thesis, but Weber unfolds the story entertainingly and what seems convincingly especially if you are a WASP, that I can recommend this book for its historical influence alone, and it an exemplar against using teleological thought.
The spirit of capitalism and everything that is good about it just as Benjamin Franklin claims it is, and is taken as a given by this author with the protestants original roots for prioritizing hard-work, fair play, and prayer makes them superior to those swarthy Italians or the papist French with their focus on eternal rewards verse the natural superiority of the thrifty protestants.
[note: Weber doesn’t say ‘swarthy’ or ‘papist’, he just takes it as a given that they aren’t like him. Why did I use the word ‘swarthy’, because at one time Time Magazine would always say ‘swarthy Italian’ when describing Italians just as Will Durant does in his opus on Civilizations and it's such an effective way of letting one’s racism sneak in, and Weber definitely has unearned pride in his ethno-centric way of thinking about the world. Also, clearly unfettered capitalism is dangerous and will lead to exploitation and alienation and even with the ‘spirit of capitalism’ advocated by Benjamin Franklin women were second class human beings grossly underpaid or utilized, Jews were marginalized and Blacks were enslaved. By default Weber is saying protestant values are superior to the Catholics, at least they are more productive under capitalism according to him].
American Firsters will easily take the concepts from this book and will create an imaginary superior species and call them WASP (white Anglo-Saxon Protestants) and claim superior status over the other. I grew up in the 1960s, I saw it happen. Today MAGA tweaks this formula and makes their values superior to all non-MAGA. Yes, I am intolerant towards MAGA, because tolerance is not necessary towards fascist or those who are not tolerant towards me.
Weber uses the word rational only for things that support his thesis. For him, rational thought is only in reference to what supports his ethnocentric point of view. Capitalism is rational and protestant values are rational because he says they are, not quite realizing that he is justifying (rationalizing) his positions because they are part of his worldview, just as his 'spirit of capitalism' must be rational because he says it is. For him, hard-work, fair-play, and prayer are ends in themselves in as much as they 'rationally' lead to earthly prosperity. Weber's book is a masterpiece at self-deception, and deserves to be read for that reason alone.
Weber’s theory is dismissed today by almost all academics. That does not mean that this book is not a fun read in itself and for itself. He really does give a great look at how a German thought about the superiority of themselves and the history that brought them there. This book excels at showing how somebody thought about the history that made them, and that makes this book well worth reading today, and besides who among us doesn’t love a book that makes us (WASP) seem so much superior to the rest of the world and re-enforces are own thought of superiority over all others. Weber just assumes the ‘occident’ is superior by giving generalities explaining why the ‘orient’ is not as good.
When one teleologically explains the present by shaping the past, one will always conclude things had to happen the way they did because today’s reality is. There is no disputing our today. Weber starts with the certainty of his reality and explains it by shaping it. Weber did say one thing that surprised me, that the protestants have less magic than the Catholics. Has he never been to a Baptist church and hear them preach? I have. Magic is everywhere within a Baptist church, it is within the sermon, the congregation, and their beliefs.
Sure, this book is full of an incoherent thesis, but Weber unfolds the story entertainingly and what seems convincingly especially if you are a WASP, that I can recommend this book for its historical influence alone, and it an exemplar against using teleological thought.
July 11, 2016
أعجز عن تذكر أول مرة تعرفت فيها على ماكس فيبر، والمصدر الذي وضعه إزائي، ولكنني منذ تلك اللحظة الأولى شغقت به. ولا زالت أفكار فيبر من الأكثر تأثيرا علي، وحفرا في طريقة تفكيري، حتى هذه اللحظة. وهذا الكتاب: الأخلاق البروتستانتية وروح الرأسمالية، وهو عمل فيبر الأهم، هو، بلا شك، من أهم ما كُتب في كل مجالات الأكاديميا الغربية على الإطلاق، وهو من أكثر الكتب تداولا ونقاشا وتأثيرا في القرن الماضي، بالإضافة إلى أنه يعد العمل المركزي، والمؤسس، لعلم الإجتماع الإقتصادي. وما تزال النقاشات حوله، ومحاولات استخدام أطروحته، ومقاربتها مرات جديدة، بعد أكثر من 100 عام على إصداره، رائجة.
الأطروحة الرئيسية في الكتاب هي كالتالي: يلاحظ فيبر أن البلدان البروتستانتية (إنجلترا ودول شمال أوروبا مثلا)، على الأغلب، متطورة إقتصاديا أكثر من البلدان الكاثوليكية (إيطاليا وإسبانيا مثلا). ويدعي بأن السبب الرئيسي لهذا التفاوت الإقتصادي هو ديني. وتفسير ذلك، أن عدة طوائف مسيحية، خصوصا الكالفينية، آمنت بأن الرخاء الإقتصادي والإجتماعي مرهون بأسس دينية؛ بأن الله ينعم هذا الرخاء، عطية منه، على عباده أعضاء هذه الطوائف، مما أنتج شكلا من النواميس أو المُثل: أخلاقيات عمل بروتستانتية، والتي صارت ضربا مقبولا، بل ومحببا، دينيا، من الرأسمالية. هذه المُثل قامت على مبدئ بسيط: صحيح أن كل البشر خطاؤون، ولا يستحقون النجاة، إلا برحمة وعطف من الله، لكن من الممكن التخمين إذا كان الله يحابيك اكثر من غيرك، وذلك بالنظر لما أنعمه عليك من هبات، وبالتالي ظهرت نزعة حاضة على العمل، بحجة أنك كلما عملت بجد أكثر، وحققت نجاحا اقتصاديا أكثر، كان ذلك دليل على رضى الله عنك.
ومع تضاؤل وانكماش أهمية الدين في الحياة العامة في القرون التالية لظهور حركة الإصلاح الديني البروتستانتية، إمّحى أو تقلص الدور الذي لعبته الطوائف الدينية والكنائس في المجالات العامة، ومنها المجال الإقتصادي، لكن روح أخلاقيات العمل البروتستانتية ظلت قارة في كثير من البلدان الأنجلوساكسونية. وما يحاول فيبر أن يحاججه، هو أن هذه الروح البروتستانتية، كانت العامل الرئيسي في انتشار الرأسمالية، وتطورها، وتحولها إلى ما يشبه حتمية تاريخية.
الأطروحة الرئيسية في الكتاب هي كالتالي: يلاحظ فيبر أن البلدان البروتستانتية (إنجلترا ودول شمال أوروبا مثلا)، على الأغلب، متطورة إقتصاديا أكثر من البلدان الكاثوليكية (إيطاليا وإسبانيا مثلا). ويدعي بأن السبب الرئيسي لهذا التفاوت الإقتصادي هو ديني. وتفسير ذلك، أن عدة طوائف مسيحية، خصوصا الكالفينية، آمنت بأن الرخاء الإقتصادي والإجتماعي مرهون بأسس دينية؛ بأن الله ينعم هذا الرخاء، عطية منه، على عباده أعضاء هذه الطوائف، مما أنتج شكلا من النواميس أو المُثل: أخلاقيات عمل بروتستانتية، والتي صارت ضربا مقبولا، بل ومحببا، دينيا، من الرأسمالية. هذه المُثل قامت على مبدئ بسيط: صحيح أن كل البشر خطاؤون، ولا يستحقون النجاة، إلا برحمة وعطف من الله، لكن من الممكن التخمين إذا كان الله يحابيك اكثر من غيرك، وذلك بالنظر لما أنعمه عليك من هبات، وبالتالي ظهرت نزعة حاضة على العمل، بحجة أنك كلما عملت بجد أكثر، وحققت نجاحا اقتصاديا أكثر، كان ذلك دليل على رضى الله عنك.
ومع تضاؤل وانكماش أهمية الدين في الحياة العامة في القرون التالية لظهور حركة الإصلاح الديني البروتستانتية، إمّحى أو تقلص الدور الذي لعبته الطوائف الدينية والكنائس في المجالات العامة، ومنها المجال الإقتصادي، لكن روح أخلاقيات العمل البروتستانتية ظلت قارة في كثير من البلدان الأنجلوساكسونية. وما يحاول فيبر أن يحاججه، هو أن هذه الروح البروتستانتية، كانت العامل الرئيسي في انتشار الرأسمالية، وتطورها، وتحولها إلى ما يشبه حتمية تاريخية.
July 29, 2023
ENGLISH
In 1995, Rede Globo, the largest TV network in Brazil, aired on its primetime news show footage of a pastor from the Universal Church of the Kingdom of God kicking the image of a Catholic saint. Screechingly proclaiming that it was nothing but a plaster statue, the pastor kicked the saint mercilessly. The scenes caused outrage.
The episode was the culmination of an aggressive dispute between two powerful economic groups in Brazil. Disturbed by the advance over the TV sector by the Universal Church led by Bishop Edir Macedo, Globo TV carried out a series of denunciation reports on its primetime news show against the Church. Universal's economic group had bought the then bankrupt Rede Record, and was showing exponential growth in audience, threatening Globo TV's hegemony.
Globo's series of reports, whose peak was the scene of the pastor kicking the saint, showed Bishop Macedo teaching pastors how to collect money from the devotees. In another scene, Macedo luxuriates over cash raised in a cult. Globo TV also complained about the tax exemptions that the Universal Church enjoyed — and this would allow Record TV to grow at a dizzying rate.
The Universal Church responded by using Record TV to denigrate Globo TV as much as it could, pointing out an alleged propagation of anti-Christian and demonic values in Globo’s soap operas.
The fight between the two networks lasted a few months and one cannot say that either of them came out on top. One could bet that the scenes showing Macedo's excessive greed would lead to the closure of Universal. The Church, however, would continue expanding in Brazil and abroad, and Record TV would still advance, although only very sporadically equaling Globo TV in audience.
The growth of the Universal Church even after the episode is not surprising. Adept of the Theology of Prosperity, the Universal Church explicitly conveys a simple, very focused message on the financial success of the devotees, but also on ethical behavior based on the evangelical religious faith.
The perspective of financial success and social ascension through moral rectitude and work stimulated by faith seems in fact to overcome discrediting facts on the leader of the religious association, since the devotees — who pay their tithes — are too many.
What would be behind the union of factors such as hard work, financial success, and religious faith?
The Protestant mentality, on which the current capitalist system is based, and which might answer that question, is precisely the subject of “Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism” by Max Weber.
In this classic of sociology from 1904, the author carries out an ambitious and intricate investigation into the influence of the Protestant mentality on Western capitalism.
Weber, right from the start, brings the thought of Benjamin Franklin, who synthesizes North American capitalist ethics and mentality based on the maxim “time is money”, on valuing work, on honesty in business, on paying debts until maturity, on multiplication of money through investment.
For Weber, modern capitalism clashed with and revolutionized the ancient mode of commerce, characterized by what he calls “traditionalism”. In the old times, peasants sold their produce to merchants in the cities, who employed few workers and made modest sales to customers. Profits were also modest and coexistence among competitors was harmonious. The way of life was peaceful and predictable.
At some point, however, even without injection of large sums of additional money, the system began to change due to the initiative of young people who left the countryside and invented large-scale production. They started using closed spaces and hiring employees to work in these new companies. Competition became increasingly fierce.
For Weber, the mentality that drives modern capitalism is a result of the development of European Protestantism. Based on this premise, Weber conducts an investigation of the evolution of different lines of Protestantism and the main differences between them. To this end, Weber starts from Thomas Aquinas, and especially from Martin Luther and John Calvin, also passing through branches such as Pietism, Methodism, and sects such as Anabaptist and Baptist.
Weber analyzes the concept of “disenchantment of the world”, strongly present in the divergence of the Protestant reformer, Martin Luther, with the Catholic Church. The concept is based on the Judaic-Christian idea that God didn’t “generate” the world, but “created” it: God is transcendent, not immanent in the things of the world, like many eastern religions believe; so sacralizing material things or trading indulgences as the Catholic Church used to do is idolatry and superstition. The “disenchantment of the world” is this removal of magic from what should be the real Christian faith. Weber then analyzes how the thoughts of later Protestant and Puritan lines, especially Calvinism, resulted in the hyper-valuation of work and in the acceptance of wealth and profit as signs of divine grace. Even though both Luther and Calvin believed that nothing a man could do on Earth would make him be chosen by God, as God has already made His choices (“predestination”), for Calvin a man should behave as if he had been chosen, and collect evidence of that from his hard work and moral rectitude.
Weber sees in this evolution of Protestant thought the genesis of the modern capitalist spirit, marked by the rationalism of the entrepreneur focused on production and profit. This practical, utilitarian and profit-oriented way of thinking present in the spirit of modern capitalism found its basis in the Protestant religious ethics and ascesis, although this religious character was later lost. But the ethics, now with a professional character, remained. As Weber mentions, the aforementioned religious base was the “bed” for the creation of “homo œconomicus”, a figure widely used in Economics, especially liberal lines, as a model of utilitarian, rational decision making man.
The Puritan way of life and thinking has so permeated the modern life that now everyone has to follow it, even the non-economically active. Once before a light cloak, our over concern with material goods has transformed it into a “steel crust” (or an “iron cage” in some translations). This idea resembles the phenomenon described by Marx as “commodity fetishism” (my review here: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...) or even the worker “alienation” or “strangement” which Marx developed in his “Paris Manuscripts” (my review here: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...)
It is interesting to note how Weber builds the bridge between the study of the evolution of religious thought and the functioning of the modern capitalist system. Like virtually all social science done before the twentieth century, or, more precisely, before the second half of the twentieth century, the researcher used his great erudition, power of observation and sensitivity — which in the case of Max Weber were abundant — to construct hypotheses, investigate them, and produce theories.
As the social sciences are currently imbued with the scientific method used in the so-called “hard” sciences, a thesis like Weber's in this book would probably be considered no more than a conjecture if launched today.
More recent studies, however, using data, have shown that insights like Weber's make sense. In the paper “Religion and Economic Growth” (Nber Working Paper 9682 http://www.nber.org/papers/w9682), for example, Robert J. Barro and Rachel M. McClearly demonstrate a positive correlation between religious belief and economic performance.
As per my review of “O Povo de Deus” (https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...), the Protestant churches in Brazil today reach where the Catholic Church doesn’t, and seem to have been effectively delivering to their devotees better discipline in life and financial success, albeit often modest.
The message of prosperity with the seal of the sacred, on the other hand, has itself brought prosperity — and economic power — also to some religious associations that convey this message in Brazil.
PORTUGUÊS
Em 1995, a Rede Globo, maior rede de televisão do Brasil, mostrava no Jornal Nacional a cena de um pastor da Igreja Universal do Reino de Deus chutando a imagem de uma santa católica. Aos berros de que aquilo não passava de uma estátua de gesso, o pastor chutava a santa sem dó nem piedade. As cenas causaram indignação.
O episódio foi o auge de uma disputa agressiva entre dois poderosos grupos econômicos do país. Incomodada com o avanço sobre o setor de TV pela Igreja Universal, liderada pelo bispo Edir Macedo, a TV Globo realizava uma série de reportagens-denúncia em seu principal noticiário contra a Igreja. O grupo econômico da Universal havia comprado a então falida Rede Record de Televisão, e vinha mostrando um crescimento exponencial de audiência, ameaçando a hegemonia da TV Globo.
A série de reportagens da Globo, cujo auge foi a cena do pastor chutando a santa, mostrava o bispo Macedo ensinando os pastores a arrecadarem dinheiro dos fiéis. Em outra cena, Macedo se refestelava sobre dinheiro vivo arrecadado em um culto. A TV Globo reclamava também das isenções tributárias que a Igreja Universal gozava — e isso permitiria o crescimento vertiginoso da TV Record.
A Igreja Universal respondia usando a TV Record para denegrir a TV Globo o quanto pudesse, apontando uma suposta propagação de valores anticristãos e demoníacos nas novelas da Globo.
A briga entre as duas emissoras durou alguns meses e não se pode dizer que alguma delas tenha saído por cima. Alguém poderia apostar que as cenas mostrando a ganância desmesurada do bispo Macedo levaria ao fechamento da Universal. A Igreja, porém, continuou se expandindo no Brasil e no exterior, e a TV Record continuou avançando, embora apenas muito esporadicamente iguale a TV Globo em audiência.
O crescimento da Igreja Universal, mesmo após o episódio, não chega a ser surpreendente. Adepta da teologia da prosperidade, a Igreja Universal explicitamente veicula uma mensagem simples, muito voltada ao sucesso financeiro dos fiéis, mas também ao comportamento ético baseado na fé religiosa evangélica.
A perspectiva do sucesso financeiro e ascensão social por meio da retidão moral e do trabalho estimulado pela fé parece de fato superar fatos desabonadores do dirigente da agremiação religiosa, pois os fiéis — que pagam seus dízimos— são muitos.
O que estaria por trás da união de fatores como trabalho duro, sucesso financeiro e fé religiosa?
A mentalidade protestante, na qual se teria alicerçado o sistema capitalista atual, e que pode responder a esse questionamento, é justamente o tema de “A Ética Protestante e o Espírito do Capitalismo” de Max Weber.
Escrito em 1904, o autor deste clássico da sociologia realiza uma ambiciosa e intrincada investigação sobre a influência da mentalidade protestante no capitalismo ocidental.
Weber logo de início traz o pensamento de Benjamin Franklin, que sintetiza a ética e a mentalidade capitalistas norte-americanas baseadas na máxima “tempo é dinheiro”, na valorização do trabalho, na retidão nos negócios, no pagamento de dívidas até seus vencimentos, na multiplicação do dinheiro pela via do investimento.
Para Weber, o capitalismo moderno entrou em choque e revolucionou o modo antigo de comércio, caracterizado pelo que ele chama de “tradicionalismo”, em que os camponeses vendiam sua produção aos comerciantes nas cidades, que empregavam poucos trabalhadores e realizavam vendas modestas aos fregueses, com lucros módicos e convivência harmônica entre concorrentes, num modo de vida bastante pacato e previsível.
Em algum momento, no entanto, sem a necessidade de injeção de grandes somas de dinheiro adicional, o sistema começou a mudar pela iniciativa de jovens que saíam do campo e inventaram a produção em larga escala, com a utilização de espaços fechados e a contratação de funcionários para trabalhar nessas novas empresas, com a concorrência se tornando cada vez mais acirrada.
Para Weber, a mentalidade que impulsiona o capitalismo moderno é resultado do desenvolvimento do protestantismo europeu. Tendo por base essa premissa, Weber realiza uma investigação da evolução de vertentes do protestantismo e as principais diferenças entre elas. Para tanto, Weber parte de Tomas de Aquino, e especialmente de Martinho Lutero e João Calvino, passando também por ramos como o Pietismo, o Metodismo, e seitas como a Anabatista e Batista.
Weber analisa o conceito de “desencantamento do mundo”, fortemente presente na divergência do reformador protestante Martinho Lutero com a Igreja Católica. O conceito se baseia na ideia judaico-cristã de que Deus não “gerou” o mundo, mas o “criou”: Deus é transcendente, não imanente nas coisas do mundo, como acreditam muitas religiões orientais; então sacralizar coisas materiais ou negociar indulgências, como a Igreja Católica fazia, é idolatria e superstição. O “desencantamento do mundo” é esse afastamento da verdadeira fé cristã de tudo o que fosse magia. Weber então analisa como os pensamentos das linhas protestantes e puritanas posteriores, especialmente o Calvinismo, redundaram na hipervalorização do trabalho e na aceitação da riqueza e do lucro como indícios de graça divina. Embora tanto Lutero quanto Calvino acreditassem que nada que um homem pudesse fazer na Terra faria com que ele fosse escolhido por Deus, já que Deus já fez suas escolhas (“predestinação”), para Calvino um homem deveria se comportar como se tivesse sido escolhido e coletar evidências disso por meio do trabalho árduo e retidão moral.
Weber vê nessa evolução do pensamento protestante a gênese do espírito capitalista moderno, marcada pelo racionalismo do empresário focado na produção e no lucro. Essa forma de pensar prática, utilitária e voltada ao lucro, presente no espírito do capitalismo moderno, encontrou base na ética religiosa e ascese protestantes, ainda que posteriormente esse caráter religioso tenha se perdido. Mas a ética, agora com caráter profissional, permaneceu. Como menciona Weber, a referida base religiosa foi a “cama” para a criação do “homo œconomicus”, figura largamente utilizada pela Economia, especialmente as linhas liberais, como modelo de homem utilitário, tomador de decisões racionais.
O modo puritano de viver e de pensar permeou tanto o estilo de vida moderno que agora, no entanto, todos devem segui-lo, mesmo os não economicamente ativos. Antes um manto leve, nossa preocupação exagerada com os bens materiais transformou-o em uma “crosta de aço” (ou uma “jaula de ferro” em algumas traduções). Essa ideia se assemelha ao fenômeno descrito por Marx como “fetichismo da mercadoria” (minha resenha aqui: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...), ou mesmo ao “estranhamento” ou “alienação” do trabalhador, que Marx desenvolveu nos seus “Manuscritos de Paris” (minha resenha aqui: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...).
É interessante notar como a ponte entre o estudo da evolução do pensamento religioso e o funcionamento do sistema capitalista moderno é construída por Weber. Como praticamente toda ciência social feita antes do século XX, ou, mais precisamente, antes da segunda metade do século XX, o pesquisador utilizava-se de sua grande erudição, poder de observação e sensibilidade — o que no caso de Max Weber eram abundantes — para construir hipóteses, investigá-las e produzir teorias.
Da forma como as ciências sociais atualmente se impregnaram do método científico utilizado nas ditas ciências “duras”, uma tese como a de Weber neste livro provavelmente não seria considerada mais do que uma conjectura se lançada atualmente. Estudos mais recentes, no entanto, utilizando dados, vem demonstrando que insights como o de Weber fazem sentido. No artigo “Religion and Economic Growth”(Nber Working Paper 9682 http://www.nber.org/papers/w9682), por exemplo, Robert J. Barro e Rachel M. McClearly demonstram correlação positiva entre crença religiosa e performance econômica.
Conforme minha resenha de “O Povo de Deus” (https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...), no Brasil atual, as religiões protestantes chegam onde a igreja católica não chega, e tem efetivamente representado melhor disciplina de vida e sucesso financeiro aos fiéis, ainda que muitas vezes modesto.
A mensagem de uma prosperidade com a chancela do sagrado, por outro lado, tem ela própria trazido prosperidade — e poder econômico — também para algumas agremiações religiosas que veiculam essa mensagem no Brasil.
In 1995, Rede Globo, the largest TV network in Brazil, aired on its primetime news show footage of a pastor from the Universal Church of the Kingdom of God kicking the image of a Catholic saint. Screechingly proclaiming that it was nothing but a plaster statue, the pastor kicked the saint mercilessly. The scenes caused outrage.
The episode was the culmination of an aggressive dispute between two powerful economic groups in Brazil. Disturbed by the advance over the TV sector by the Universal Church led by Bishop Edir Macedo, Globo TV carried out a series of denunciation reports on its primetime news show against the Church. Universal's economic group had bought the then bankrupt Rede Record, and was showing exponential growth in audience, threatening Globo TV's hegemony.
Globo's series of reports, whose peak was the scene of the pastor kicking the saint, showed Bishop Macedo teaching pastors how to collect money from the devotees. In another scene, Macedo luxuriates over cash raised in a cult. Globo TV also complained about the tax exemptions that the Universal Church enjoyed — and this would allow Record TV to grow at a dizzying rate.
The Universal Church responded by using Record TV to denigrate Globo TV as much as it could, pointing out an alleged propagation of anti-Christian and demonic values in Globo’s soap operas.
The fight between the two networks lasted a few months and one cannot say that either of them came out on top. One could bet that the scenes showing Macedo's excessive greed would lead to the closure of Universal. The Church, however, would continue expanding in Brazil and abroad, and Record TV would still advance, although only very sporadically equaling Globo TV in audience.
The growth of the Universal Church even after the episode is not surprising. Adept of the Theology of Prosperity, the Universal Church explicitly conveys a simple, very focused message on the financial success of the devotees, but also on ethical behavior based on the evangelical religious faith.
The perspective of financial success and social ascension through moral rectitude and work stimulated by faith seems in fact to overcome discrediting facts on the leader of the religious association, since the devotees — who pay their tithes — are too many.
What would be behind the union of factors such as hard work, financial success, and religious faith?
The Protestant mentality, on which the current capitalist system is based, and which might answer that question, is precisely the subject of “Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism” by Max Weber.
In this classic of sociology from 1904, the author carries out an ambitious and intricate investigation into the influence of the Protestant mentality on Western capitalism.
Weber, right from the start, brings the thought of Benjamin Franklin, who synthesizes North American capitalist ethics and mentality based on the maxim “time is money”, on valuing work, on honesty in business, on paying debts until maturity, on multiplication of money through investment.
For Weber, modern capitalism clashed with and revolutionized the ancient mode of commerce, characterized by what he calls “traditionalism”. In the old times, peasants sold their produce to merchants in the cities, who employed few workers and made modest sales to customers. Profits were also modest and coexistence among competitors was harmonious. The way of life was peaceful and predictable.
At some point, however, even without injection of large sums of additional money, the system began to change due to the initiative of young people who left the countryside and invented large-scale production. They started using closed spaces and hiring employees to work in these new companies. Competition became increasingly fierce.
For Weber, the mentality that drives modern capitalism is a result of the development of European Protestantism. Based on this premise, Weber conducts an investigation of the evolution of different lines of Protestantism and the main differences between them. To this end, Weber starts from Thomas Aquinas, and especially from Martin Luther and John Calvin, also passing through branches such as Pietism, Methodism, and sects such as Anabaptist and Baptist.
Weber analyzes the concept of “disenchantment of the world”, strongly present in the divergence of the Protestant reformer, Martin Luther, with the Catholic Church. The concept is based on the Judaic-Christian idea that God didn’t “generate” the world, but “created” it: God is transcendent, not immanent in the things of the world, like many eastern religions believe; so sacralizing material things or trading indulgences as the Catholic Church used to do is idolatry and superstition. The “disenchantment of the world” is this removal of magic from what should be the real Christian faith. Weber then analyzes how the thoughts of later Protestant and Puritan lines, especially Calvinism, resulted in the hyper-valuation of work and in the acceptance of wealth and profit as signs of divine grace. Even though both Luther and Calvin believed that nothing a man could do on Earth would make him be chosen by God, as God has already made His choices (“predestination”), for Calvin a man should behave as if he had been chosen, and collect evidence of that from his hard work and moral rectitude.
Weber sees in this evolution of Protestant thought the genesis of the modern capitalist spirit, marked by the rationalism of the entrepreneur focused on production and profit. This practical, utilitarian and profit-oriented way of thinking present in the spirit of modern capitalism found its basis in the Protestant religious ethics and ascesis, although this religious character was later lost. But the ethics, now with a professional character, remained. As Weber mentions, the aforementioned religious base was the “bed” for the creation of “homo œconomicus”, a figure widely used in Economics, especially liberal lines, as a model of utilitarian, rational decision making man.
The Puritan way of life and thinking has so permeated the modern life that now everyone has to follow it, even the non-economically active. Once before a light cloak, our over concern with material goods has transformed it into a “steel crust” (or an “iron cage” in some translations). This idea resembles the phenomenon described by Marx as “commodity fetishism” (my review here: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...) or even the worker “alienation” or “strangement” which Marx developed in his “Paris Manuscripts” (my review here: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...)
It is interesting to note how Weber builds the bridge between the study of the evolution of religious thought and the functioning of the modern capitalist system. Like virtually all social science done before the twentieth century, or, more precisely, before the second half of the twentieth century, the researcher used his great erudition, power of observation and sensitivity — which in the case of Max Weber were abundant — to construct hypotheses, investigate them, and produce theories.
As the social sciences are currently imbued with the scientific method used in the so-called “hard” sciences, a thesis like Weber's in this book would probably be considered no more than a conjecture if launched today.
More recent studies, however, using data, have shown that insights like Weber's make sense. In the paper “Religion and Economic Growth” (Nber Working Paper 9682 http://www.nber.org/papers/w9682), for example, Robert J. Barro and Rachel M. McClearly demonstrate a positive correlation between religious belief and economic performance.
As per my review of “O Povo de Deus” (https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...), the Protestant churches in Brazil today reach where the Catholic Church doesn’t, and seem to have been effectively delivering to their devotees better discipline in life and financial success, albeit often modest.
The message of prosperity with the seal of the sacred, on the other hand, has itself brought prosperity — and economic power — also to some religious associations that convey this message in Brazil.
PORTUGUÊS
Em 1995, a Rede Globo, maior rede de televisão do Brasil, mostrava no Jornal Nacional a cena de um pastor da Igreja Universal do Reino de Deus chutando a imagem de uma santa católica. Aos berros de que aquilo não passava de uma estátua de gesso, o pastor chutava a santa sem dó nem piedade. As cenas causaram indignação.
O episódio foi o auge de uma disputa agressiva entre dois poderosos grupos econômicos do país. Incomodada com o avanço sobre o setor de TV pela Igreja Universal, liderada pelo bispo Edir Macedo, a TV Globo realizava uma série de reportagens-denúncia em seu principal noticiário contra a Igreja. O grupo econômico da Universal havia comprado a então falida Rede Record de Televisão, e vinha mostrando um crescimento exponencial de audiência, ameaçando a hegemonia da TV Globo.
A série de reportagens da Globo, cujo auge foi a cena do pastor chutando a santa, mostrava o bispo Macedo ensinando os pastores a arrecadarem dinheiro dos fiéis. Em outra cena, Macedo se refestelava sobre dinheiro vivo arrecadado em um culto. A TV Globo reclamava também das isenções tributárias que a Igreja Universal gozava — e isso permitiria o crescimento vertiginoso da TV Record.
A Igreja Universal respondia usando a TV Record para denegrir a TV Globo o quanto pudesse, apontando uma suposta propagação de valores anticristãos e demoníacos nas novelas da Globo.
A briga entre as duas emissoras durou alguns meses e não se pode dizer que alguma delas tenha saído por cima. Alguém poderia apostar que as cenas mostrando a ganância desmesurada do bispo Macedo levaria ao fechamento da Universal. A Igreja, porém, continuou se expandindo no Brasil e no exterior, e a TV Record continuou avançando, embora apenas muito esporadicamente iguale a TV Globo em audiência.
O crescimento da Igreja Universal, mesmo após o episódio, não chega a ser surpreendente. Adepta da teologia da prosperidade, a Igreja Universal explicitamente veicula uma mensagem simples, muito voltada ao sucesso financeiro dos fiéis, mas também ao comportamento ético baseado na fé religiosa evangélica.
A perspectiva do sucesso financeiro e ascensão social por meio da retidão moral e do trabalho estimulado pela fé parece de fato superar fatos desabonadores do dirigente da agremiação religiosa, pois os fiéis — que pagam seus dízimos— são muitos.
O que estaria por trás da união de fatores como trabalho duro, sucesso financeiro e fé religiosa?
A mentalidade protestante, na qual se teria alicerçado o sistema capitalista atual, e que pode responder a esse questionamento, é justamente o tema de “A Ética Protestante e o Espírito do Capitalismo” de Max Weber.
Escrito em 1904, o autor deste clássico da sociologia realiza uma ambiciosa e intrincada investigação sobre a influência da mentalidade protestante no capitalismo ocidental.
Weber logo de início traz o pensamento de Benjamin Franklin, que sintetiza a ética e a mentalidade capitalistas norte-americanas baseadas na máxima “tempo é dinheiro”, na valorização do trabalho, na retidão nos negócios, no pagamento de dívidas até seus vencimentos, na multiplicação do dinheiro pela via do investimento.
Para Weber, o capitalismo moderno entrou em choque e revolucionou o modo antigo de comércio, caracterizado pelo que ele chama de “tradicionalismo”, em que os camponeses vendiam sua produção aos comerciantes nas cidades, que empregavam poucos trabalhadores e realizavam vendas modestas aos fregueses, com lucros módicos e convivência harmônica entre concorrentes, num modo de vida bastante pacato e previsível.
Em algum momento, no entanto, sem a necessidade de injeção de grandes somas de dinheiro adicional, o sistema começou a mudar pela iniciativa de jovens que saíam do campo e inventaram a produção em larga escala, com a utilização de espaços fechados e a contratação de funcionários para trabalhar nessas novas empresas, com a concorrência se tornando cada vez mais acirrada.
Para Weber, a mentalidade que impulsiona o capitalismo moderno é resultado do desenvolvimento do protestantismo europeu. Tendo por base essa premissa, Weber realiza uma investigação da evolução de vertentes do protestantismo e as principais diferenças entre elas. Para tanto, Weber parte de Tomas de Aquino, e especialmente de Martinho Lutero e João Calvino, passando também por ramos como o Pietismo, o Metodismo, e seitas como a Anabatista e Batista.
Weber analisa o conceito de “desencantamento do mundo”, fortemente presente na divergência do reformador protestante Martinho Lutero com a Igreja Católica. O conceito se baseia na ideia judaico-cristã de que Deus não “gerou” o mundo, mas o “criou”: Deus é transcendente, não imanente nas coisas do mundo, como acreditam muitas religiões orientais; então sacralizar coisas materiais ou negociar indulgências, como a Igreja Católica fazia, é idolatria e superstição. O “desencantamento do mundo” é esse afastamento da verdadeira fé cristã de tudo o que fosse magia. Weber então analisa como os pensamentos das linhas protestantes e puritanas posteriores, especialmente o Calvinismo, redundaram na hipervalorização do trabalho e na aceitação da riqueza e do lucro como indícios de graça divina. Embora tanto Lutero quanto Calvino acreditassem que nada que um homem pudesse fazer na Terra faria com que ele fosse escolhido por Deus, já que Deus já fez suas escolhas (“predestinação”), para Calvino um homem deveria se comportar como se tivesse sido escolhido e coletar evidências disso por meio do trabalho árduo e retidão moral.
Weber vê nessa evolução do pensamento protestante a gênese do espírito capitalista moderno, marcada pelo racionalismo do empresário focado na produção e no lucro. Essa forma de pensar prática, utilitária e voltada ao lucro, presente no espírito do capitalismo moderno, encontrou base na ética religiosa e ascese protestantes, ainda que posteriormente esse caráter religioso tenha se perdido. Mas a ética, agora com caráter profissional, permaneceu. Como menciona Weber, a referida base religiosa foi a “cama” para a criação do “homo œconomicus”, figura largamente utilizada pela Economia, especialmente as linhas liberais, como modelo de homem utilitário, tomador de decisões racionais.
O modo puritano de viver e de pensar permeou tanto o estilo de vida moderno que agora, no entanto, todos devem segui-lo, mesmo os não economicamente ativos. Antes um manto leve, nossa preocupação exagerada com os bens materiais transformou-o em uma “crosta de aço” (ou uma “jaula de ferro” em algumas traduções). Essa ideia se assemelha ao fenômeno descrito por Marx como “fetichismo da mercadoria” (minha resenha aqui: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...), ou mesmo ao “estranhamento” ou “alienação” do trabalhador, que Marx desenvolveu nos seus “Manuscritos de Paris” (minha resenha aqui: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...).
É interessante notar como a ponte entre o estudo da evolução do pensamento religioso e o funcionamento do sistema capitalista moderno é construída por Weber. Como praticamente toda ciência social feita antes do século XX, ou, mais precisamente, antes da segunda metade do século XX, o pesquisador utilizava-se de sua grande erudição, poder de observação e sensibilidade — o que no caso de Max Weber eram abundantes — para construir hipóteses, investigá-las e produzir teorias.
Da forma como as ciências sociais atualmente se impregnaram do método científico utilizado nas ditas ciências “duras”, uma tese como a de Weber neste livro provavelmente não seria considerada mais do que uma conjectura se lançada atualmente. Estudos mais recentes, no entanto, utilizando dados, vem demonstrando que insights como o de Weber fazem sentido. No artigo “Religion and Economic Growth”(Nber Working Paper 9682 http://www.nber.org/papers/w9682), por exemplo, Robert J. Barro e Rachel M. McClearly demonstram correlação positiva entre crença religiosa e performance econômica.
Conforme minha resenha de “O Povo de Deus” (https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...), no Brasil atual, as religiões protestantes chegam onde a igreja católica não chega, e tem efetivamente representado melhor disciplina de vida e sucesso financeiro aos fiéis, ainda que muitas vezes modesto.
A mensagem de uma prosperidade com a chancela do sagrado, por outro lado, tem ela própria trazido prosperidade — e poder econômico — também para algumas agremiações religiosas que veiculam essa mensagem no Brasil.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
April 2, 2015
این کتاب تجربه یک متن کلاسیک به تمام معنا بود. از نظر من یک متن به واسطه ظرایف، دقایق و نکات غامض�� که در برداره بدل به چیزی میشه که میتوان مکررا به آن رجوع کرد و هر بار تفسیر نوینی ازش ارایه کرد و بهره تازه ای ازش برداشت.
فارغ از موضوع مورد تحلیل روش وبر سرنوشت سازه که میشه ازش به عنوان تیپیک کار علمی ازش نام برد. خوانش متونی که هرچند به نظر دم دستی باشند ولی میتوشه ازش تحلیل یک عصر و به قول وبر روح یک دوران رو استخراج کرد کاری بود که وبر متناوبا روی نوشته های فرانکلین و باستر انجام میده و حتی چیزهایی از تحلیل متن اون ها بفهمه که خودشون ازش غافل بودند.
خصوصا شاهکار چند صفحه آخر فصل یکی مانده به آخر درباب قفس آهنینی که ما درونش زیست میکنم، خصوصا با ارجاعاتی نامحسوسش به نیچه، برای خوندن کل متن کفایت میکنه.
هرچند در نهایت بعد از خوانش فرسایشی چند ماهه کتاب قدری با نحو تحلیل وبر اختلاف پیدا کردم ولی به هر حال ارزش یک متن کلاسیک توان تفکر در درون و همراه با اونه که به نظرم درباب این کتاب تا مدت ها از دست نخواهد رفت.
فارغ از موضوع مورد تحلیل روش وبر سرنوشت سازه که میشه ازش به عنوان تیپیک کار علمی ازش نام برد. خوانش متونی که هرچند به نظر دم دستی باشند ولی میتوشه ازش تحلیل یک عصر و به قول وبر روح یک دوران رو استخراج کرد کاری بود که وبر متناوبا روی نوشته های فرانکلین و باستر انجام میده و حتی چیزهایی از تحلیل متن اون ها بفهمه که خودشون ازش غافل بودند.
خصوصا شاهکار چند صفحه آخر فصل یکی مانده به آخر درباب قفس آهنینی که ما درونش زیست میکنم، خصوصا با ارجاعاتی نامحسوسش به نیچه، برای خوندن کل متن کفایت میکنه.
هرچند در نهایت بعد از خوانش فرسایشی چند ماهه کتاب قدری با نحو تحلیل وبر اختلاف پیدا کردم ولی به هر حال ارزش یک متن کلاسیک توان تفکر در درون و همراه با اونه که به نظرم درباب این کتاب تا مدت ها از دست نخواهد رفت.
October 24, 2015
It didn't exactly impress me nor did it convince me. I found Weber's notion of an "innocent" and idealistic capitalism where profit is not the objective and the entrepreneurs should work for the uninterrupted trading of goods and capital, totally utopian. It does not apply to our time and age, where capitalists have shown their true colours and their one and only concern: profit, whatever the cost.
So, The Protestant Ethic probably teaches us what good ideas can turn into. It is difficult to get through, not your average fun read. I found interesting the last couple of chapters where the various "branches" of Protestantism are explained, because we don't do any courses on comparative religion at school (most people in my country can't tell a Protestant from a Catholic!).
P.S. I am very, very glad I wasn't born in a Quaker or Puritan community!
So, The Protestant Ethic probably teaches us what good ideas can turn into. It is difficult to get through, not your average fun read. I found interesting the last couple of chapters where the various "branches" of Protestantism are explained, because we don't do any courses on comparative religion at school (most people in my country can't tell a Protestant from a Catholic!).
P.S. I am very, very glad I wasn't born in a Quaker or Puritan community!
May 31, 2021
Дуже цікава класична праця, давно хотіла почитати. Наскільки я зрозуміла, написана у полеміці з марксизмом, про те, що економіка і релігія не співвідносяться між собою як базис і надбудова, а все значно складніше. Зокрема, ідея автора у тому, як із вчення про "професійне покликання" та про "божественне приречення", особливо у їх пуританській інтерпретації, виросла ділова етика, що уможливила розвиток підприємницького капіталізму.
September 11, 2024
Interessant om te lezen met de kennis van nu. Verrassende conclusie: het lijkt alsof de arbeidsethos van de huidige jongere generaties wel wat weg heeft van de (volgens Weber) heersende opvattingen uit de tijd voorafgaand aan de 16e eeuw.
'They regarded work as involving drudgery and exertion; it was a necessary evil to be avoided as soon as customary and constant economic needs were met.'
'They regarded work as involving drudgery and exertion; it was a necessary evil to be avoided as soon as customary and constant economic needs were met.'
September 18, 2020
الإنسان دائما في العصور التاريخية والقبل تاريخية كان عنده نزوع نحو الكسب، نحو الغنى، أبسط أشكاله بيكون في سد حاجته من المأكل والملبس، والشكل الآخر في اكتناز المال والاستمرار في السعي لجمعه بما يتجاوز الحاجات الأساسية في الحياة.
إيه اللي بيميز الرأسمالية الحديثة طالما كان ده سعي الإنسان دائما؟
ماكس فيبر بيقف على النقطة دي وبيحلل الفرق بين روح العصور القديمة في كسب المال وبين "روح الرأسمالية" الحديثة، وأهم عنصر هنا هو العقلنة وصبغ طابع أخلاقي (ديني) على العمل.
في كتابه "الأخلاق البروتستانتية وروح الرأسمالية" بينطلق بشكل أساسي من فهم أثر عصر الإصلاح والتأثيرات اللوثرية (عن مفهوم العمل) والكالفينية بالأخص (وعدد من الفرق النسكية ومفهومهم عن العمل) وعدد من الفرق البروتستانتية الأخرى في تكوين العقلية الرأسمالية تكوينا نوعيا، وفي نشرها عبر العالم، حيث إن إضفاء نوع من العقلنة في الحياة الدنيا -مع أخذ الآخرة بالاعتبار- هي نتيجة التصور اللي وضعته البروتستانتية عن المهنة كاستجابة لنداء داخلي ربّاني، أو كواجب ديني مفروض من الإرادة الإلهية، في إعادة تأويل لآية بولس: "إذا لم يرغب أحدكم أن يعمل فليكف عن الأكل أيضا"، وغيرها من التعاليم التي نوهت بها الفرق البروتستانتية الغربية كثيرا اعتمتدا على الكتاب المقدس.
يبحث فيبر عن بعض "أشكال القرابة الانتقائية" ممكنة الوجود بين الإيمان الديني والأخلاق الوظيفية، حيث إن العديد من أشكال أو روح الرأسمالية الحديثة نابع من أخلاق التقشف عند الكالفنيين وبعض الفرق اللي انحدرت منهم زي التقويين والطهريين والميثوديين والمعدانيين، وفكرة الانتساب إلى طائفة دينية تشابه الانتساب إلى نوادي الطبقة العليا من حيث المزايا الاجتماعية اللي بينولها الفرد، وعدد من الخصائص الأخرى،ومن خلال بحث أشكال القرابة الانتقائية يحاول أن يكون أكثر دقة في توضيح الشكل والوجهة اللي تمكنت الحركة الدينية أن تؤثر عبرهما على تطور الحضارة المادية، مما يسهل تقدير حصة الدوافع الدينية في من بناء الحضارة وحصة غيرها من العناصر الأخرى.
"تلخيصا لما قلناه حتى الآن، تتعارض النسكية البروتستانتية، التي تمارس تأثيرا حادا في الحياة الدنيا، تعترضا حادا مع التمتع بالثروات، وتكبح الاستهلاك، لا سيما في مجال الأشياء الكمالية.
وفي المقابل يكمن مفعولها البسيكولوجي في تخليص الرغبة بالكسب من كوابت الأخلاق التقليدوية. كما أنها تقطع السلاسل التي تعيق مثل هذا الميل إلى الكسب لا بتشريع هذا الميل فحسب، ولكن أيضا، كما سبق وعرضناه، بالنظر إليه كأمر يريده الله.
وكما يقول باركلي عن عمد، وهو كبير المنافحين الصاحبيين، وبالتوافق مع الطهريين، إن الصراع ضد إغواءات الجسد والتبعية للثروات الخارجية لا يستهدف أبدا الكسب العقلاني بل استخدام الأملاك استخداما لا عقلانيا."
إيه اللي بيميز الرأسمالية الحديثة طالما كان ده سعي الإنسان دائما؟
ماكس فيبر بيقف على النقطة دي وبيحلل الفرق بين روح العصور القديمة في كسب المال وبين "روح الرأسمالية" الحديثة، وأهم عنصر هنا هو العقلنة وصبغ طابع أخلاقي (ديني) على العمل.
في كتابه "الأخلاق البروتستانتية وروح الرأسمالية" بينطلق بشكل أساسي من فهم أثر عصر الإصلاح والتأثيرات اللوثرية (عن مفهوم العمل) والكالفينية بالأخص (وعدد من الفرق النسكية ومفهومهم عن العمل) وعدد من الفرق البروتستانتية الأخرى في تكوين العقلية الرأسمالية تكوينا نوعيا، وفي نشرها عبر العالم، حيث إن إضفاء نوع من العقلنة في الحياة الدنيا -مع أخذ الآخرة بالاعتبار- هي نتيجة التصور اللي وضعته البروتستانتية عن المهنة كاستجابة لنداء داخلي ربّاني، أو كواجب ديني مفروض من الإرادة الإلهية، في إعادة تأويل لآية بولس: "إذا لم يرغب أحدكم أن يعمل فليكف عن الأكل أيضا"، وغيرها من التعاليم التي نوهت بها الفرق البروتستانتية الغربية كثيرا اعتمتدا على الكتاب المقدس.
يبحث فيبر عن بعض "أشكال القرابة الانتقائية" ممكنة الوجود بين الإيمان الديني والأخلاق الوظيفية، حيث إن العديد من أشكال أو روح الرأسمالية الحديثة نابع من أخلاق التقشف عند الكالفنيين وبعض الفرق اللي انحدرت منهم زي التقويين والطهريين والميثوديين والمعدانيين، وفكرة الانتساب إلى طائفة دينية تشابه الانتساب إلى نوادي الطبقة العليا من حيث المزايا الاجتماعية اللي بينولها الفرد، وعدد من الخصائص الأخرى،ومن خلال بحث أشكال القرابة الانتقائية يحاول أن يكون أكثر دقة في توضيح الشكل والوجهة اللي تمكنت الحركة الدينية أن تؤثر عبرهما على تطور الحضارة المادية، مما يسهل تقدير حصة الدوافع الدينية في من بناء الحضارة وحصة غيرها من العناصر الأخرى.
"تلخيصا لما قلناه حتى الآن، تتعارض النسكية البروتستانتية، التي تمارس تأثيرا حادا في الحياة الدنيا، تعترضا حادا مع التمتع بالثروات، وتكبح الاستهلاك، لا سيما في مجال الأشياء الكمالية.
وفي المقابل يكمن مفعولها البسيكولوجي في تخليص الرغبة بالكسب من كوابت الأخلاق التقليدوية. كما أنها تقطع السلاسل التي تعيق مثل هذا الميل إلى الكسب لا بتشريع هذا الميل فحسب، ولكن أيضا، كما سبق وعرضناه، بالنظر إليه كأمر يريده الله.
وكما يقول باركلي عن عمد، وهو كبير المنافحين الصاحبيين، وبالتوافق مع الطهريين، إن الصراع ضد إغواءات الجسد والتبعية للثروات الخارجية لا يستهدف أبدا الكسب العقلاني بل استخدام الأملاك استخداما لا عقلانيا."
January 19, 2019
در مسیر خواندن کتاب هایی که چگونه ثروتمند شویم، به کتابی به نام ثروتمندترین مرد بابل برخوردم. در آن کتاب قصه ای گفته می شود که یک فرد چگونه ثروتمند شود، به این گونه که هر فردی باید از هر ده سکه درآمد خود یک سکه پس انداز کند و آن را سرمایه گذاری کند و سود سرمایه گذاری را نیز به مثابه بردگانی به کار بیاندازد تا آن بردگان به زاد و ولد بپردازند و سربازان جدیدی به سپاه سرمایه اضافه گردند. انباشت سرمایه رمز ثروت است. اما حال فرض کنید که نخوردیم و پس انداز کردیم و قارون زمان شدیم، اگر مصرف نکنیم به چه کارمان می آید؟ مگر نه آنکه فرعونیان نیز زر و سیم خود را به قبر فرستاده اند! مکس وبر در کتاب اخلاق پروتستانی و روح سرمایه داری از حل این مسئله سخن میگوید. وبر میگوید که سخت کار کنید و با صرفه جویی مال بیاندوزید. آن را مصرف نکنید. با سخت کار کردن بمیرید. این روح سرمایه داری است که به خواستاران ثروت میگوید تا دم مرگ ریاضت بکشید و ساده زندگی کنید. در قبر که میروید سرمایه تان بار امانتی میشود برای وارثانتان تا آنان نیز نخورند و با سخت کار کردن مال را انبار کنند. شاید این توصیف منزجر کننده بیاید. واقعاً هم منزجر کننده است. هر کسی که کتاب وبلن تئوری طبقه ی تن آسا را خوانده باشد میداند که مصرف، تجمل ارزشی بسیار بزرگ در جامعه ی انسانی دارد. کسی که هیچ تولیدی ندارد ولی توانایی مصرفی بالایی داشته باشد و با تجمل زندگی کند در نزد انسانها خدا می تواند باشد. برای همین است که فرزندان ثروتمندان سوار مازراتی نزد هم نسلان خود خدای افسونگریند
اخلاق پروتستانی و روح سرمایه داری کتابی است که در نهایت دقت نوشته شده است. وبر انگار آموزه های پروتستانی مثل کار سخت و عمیق را که در حقیقت نتیجه ی خویشتن داری و ریاضتش بوده است در نثر و عمق محتوا به رخ خواننده میکشاند. او یک مشاهده گر بی نظیر در حوزه ی جامعه شناسی است. وبر سعی در بیان دین ثروتمندان بدون جهت گیری در کتابش داشته است. دانستن چیزهایی از دین پروتستان و فرقه های آن برای جوانانی که خواهان ثروت هستند در حین جالب بودن ضروریست. اگر میخواهید راکفلر زمانتان شوید این کتاب را بخوانید.
اخلاق پروتستانی و روح سرمایه داری کتابی است که در نهایت دقت نوشته شده است. وبر انگار آموزه های پروتستانی مثل کار سخت و عمیق را که در حقیقت نتیجه ی خویشتن داری و ریاضتش بوده است در نثر و عمق محتوا به رخ خواننده میکشاند. او یک مشاهده گر بی نظیر در حوزه ی جامعه شناسی است. وبر سعی در بیان دین ثروتمندان بدون جهت گیری در کتابش داشته است. دانستن چیزهایی از دین پروتستان و فرقه های آن برای جوانانی که خواهان ثروت هستند در حین جالب بودن ضروریست. اگر میخواهید راکفلر زمانتان شوید این کتاب را بخوانید.
October 26, 2017
همه فرهنگ جدید یعنی ’’شیوه زندگی عقلانی بر مبنای ایده شغل به عنوان تکلیف‘‘ که از روحیه ریاضت کشی مسیحی زاده شد.
از متن کتاب
از متن کتاب
December 28, 2020
More about religion than about capitalism than I expected. Nonetheless, an interesting and well supported argument: a grade “A” academic survey.
January 9, 2026
read this in between fits of flying rage about american fascism, making a curiously emotional response in me, to the seeming ironic rise of capitalism in response to the protestant ethic. this is all accidental? from the beginning? we weren’t even trying to be capitalist, we just had the right religious laborers?
this is one of many books in my new series “i can’t believe i haven’t read this yet”. weber sketching a social process that is massive and complicated and yet gets it across in around 100 pages of text. i see why people still read this. you could probably get away with just reading the fifth section if you wanted a superficial view of what weber is “about”, but realistically, exploring medieval german christian life is what weber is all about. this book is about who these people are and why their religious life was the perfect structure for capitalism to emerge upon. the contingent story of capitalism in weber is probably the best opponent a marxist could wish for. weber is sincere and deeply curious about the world, and his rebuking of marxian terminology of base and superstructure (though his explicit rebuking in the text is superficial) raises a real challenge to marxist philosophy of history. minus one star because there really is a lot of exposition about calvinists/lutherans/pietists/methodists/baptists and it drags.
this is one of many books in my new series “i can’t believe i haven’t read this yet”. weber sketching a social process that is massive and complicated and yet gets it across in around 100 pages of text. i see why people still read this. you could probably get away with just reading the fifth section if you wanted a superficial view of what weber is “about”, but realistically, exploring medieval german christian life is what weber is all about. this book is about who these people are and why their religious life was the perfect structure for capitalism to emerge upon. the contingent story of capitalism in weber is probably the best opponent a marxist could wish for. weber is sincere and deeply curious about the world, and his rebuking of marxian terminology of base and superstructure (though his explicit rebuking in the text is superficial) raises a real challenge to marxist philosophy of history. minus one star because there really is a lot of exposition about calvinists/lutherans/pietists/methodists/baptists and it drags.
January 15, 2020
Interesting. A short read of history, psychology, and economics and how Christianity shaped our modern economy and psychological behavior. It's not War & Peace, but it was acceptably intriguing.
Quote: "...the care for external goods should only lie on the shoulders of the 'saint like a light cloak, which can be thrown aside at any moment'. But fate decreed that the cloak should become an iron cage."
Quote: "...the care for external goods should only lie on the shoulders of the 'saint like a light cloak, which can be thrown aside at any moment'. But fate decreed that the cloak should become an iron cage."
January 20, 2020
Each person that read the novel of Heinrich Boll "The Clown" with reading this amazing book of Max Webber can better understand the hard relationship between Hans and your father
قبل از این که یادداشت را بخوانید عرض کنم به هر کس رمان "عقاید یک دلقک The Clown" را خوانده توصیه میکنم برای درک بهتر رابطه غامض هانس با پدرش و با جامعه کاتولیک معشوقه اش این کتاب ارزشمند را بخواند. به علاوه گمان میکنم توضیحاتی که وبر درباره نقش فرقه گرایی در امریکای قرن گذشته میدهد به شما در فهم بهتر فیلم "دار و دستههای نیویورکی" کمک خواهدکرد.
فکر می کنم اولین جایی که خواندم چطور مسیحیت اروپا را به سمت سرمایهداری هل داد در آغاز مقاله خواندنی "در ستایش بطالت" از "برتراند راسل" بود که گفت یک قول معروف مسیحی هست که میگوید شیطان همواره برای دستهای بیکار کاری میتراشد.
وبر در جستجوی روح سرمایهداری در جوامع غربی به سراغ اخلاقیات پروتستانی در فرقههای مختلف آن میرود و مینویسد:
"به عقیده وبر، روح سرمایه داری از عذاب کالونیستی زاده شد: فرد باید خودرا برگزیده تلقی می کرد، زیراعدم یقین نشانه ایمان ناقص بود؛ وسیله اثبات این یقین انجام اعمال نیک در فعالیت دنیوی بود. توفیق دریک شغل به عنوان نشانه -و نه وسیله- برگزیدگی محسوب گردید. انباشت ثروت مادام که با فعالیت مجدانه در یک حرفه همراه بود اخلاقأ مجازدانسته میشد؛ ثروت در صورتی محکوم بود که در خدمت یک زندگی توأم با تن آسایی، تجمل، و ترضيه نفس باشد."
درباره مفهوم "دنیوی شدن دین" توضیح میدهد و میگوید که این مفهوم زائیده عذاب کالوینیسم (از فرق پروتستان) است که ناشی از تقدیرگرایی سفت و سخت آن است. هیچ کس مطلقا بخت رستگاری ندارد مگر آن که در جهت اعتلای عظمت خداوند در زمین بکوشد:
"اگر بپرسیم که یک کالوینیست از طریق کدام نتایج خود را قادر به تشخیص ایمان حقیقی میدانست، پاسخ این است: از طریق سلوکی مسیحی که در خدمت افزایش عظمت خدا باشد. اما آنچه را که به افزایش عظمت خدا خدمت می کند می توان از اراده خدا که به نحو مستقیم در کتاب مقدس یا به نحو غیر مستقیم در نظم غايتمند جهانی که آفریده اوست (قانون طبیعت) متجلی می شود دریافت کرد."
سپس به عنوان نمونه برخی از ارزشهای اخلاقی بنیامین فرانکلین را مثال میآورد و مینویسد:
"کلیه رویکردهای اخلاقی فرانکلین رنگ منفعت گرایانه به خود گرفته اند: صداقت سودمند است، زیرا اعتبار تأمین میکند و وقت شناسی، پشتکار، و صرفه جویی نیز فقط به همین دلیل در زمره فضایل محسوب می شوند. منطقأ می توان از این رویکرد چنین استنباط نمود که في المثل اگر در جایی صداقت ظاهری نیز همین نتیجه را به بار آورد کفایت میکند و مازاد غیر ضروری این فضیلت از نظر فرانکلین اسرافی بیهوده محسوب می شود."
توضیح میدهد که فرق پروتستان به شدت و حدت مختلف مخالف لذت گرایی و معتقد به قدرت تزکیه کننده کار بودند در نتیجه در جهان پروتستان زمینه برای فعالیت سرمایهدارانه فراهم میشد چون مردم حق نداشتند از سرمایه فراهم آمده خود برای معاش آسوده بهره ببرند. وبر اهمیت مفهوم Beruf را مشخص میکند که آن را مسامحتا باید شغل یا وظیفه یا سلوک ترجمه کرد و میگوید که این وظیفه در واقع نوعی «ریاضت کشی» برای رسیدن به رستگاری بود:
"ایده کالوینیسم این بود: ضرورت اثبات ایمان در زندگی شغلی دنیوی. بدین ترتیب، کالوینیسم به گروه های وسیع تری از مردم که دارای تمایلات مذهبی بودند انگیزه ای مثبت برای ریاضت کشی بخشید و با بنا کردن اخلاقیات خود بر پایه آموزه تقدیر، اشرافیت روحانی راهبان در خارج و مافوق این جهان را با اشرافیت روحانی متقیان برگزیده خدا در همین جهان جایگزین کرد؛"
قبل از این که یادداشت را بخوانید عرض کنم به هر کس رمان "عقاید یک دلقک The Clown" را خوانده توصیه میکنم برای درک بهتر رابطه غامض هانس با پدرش و با جامعه کاتولیک معشوقه اش این کتاب ارزشمند را بخواند. به علاوه گمان میکنم توضیحاتی که وبر درباره نقش فرقه گرایی در امریکای قرن گذشته میدهد به شما در فهم بهتر فیلم "دار و دستههای نیویورکی" کمک خواهدکرد.
فکر می کنم اولین جایی که خواندم چطور مسیحیت اروپا را به سمت سرمایهداری هل داد در آغاز مقاله خواندنی "در ستایش بطالت" از "برتراند راسل" بود که گفت یک قول معروف مسیحی هست که میگوید شیطان همواره برای دستهای بیکار کاری میتراشد.
وبر در جستجوی روح سرمایهداری در جوامع غربی به سراغ اخلاقیات پروتستانی در فرقههای مختلف آن میرود و مینویسد:
"به عقیده وبر، روح سرمایه داری از عذاب کالونیستی زاده شد: فرد باید خودرا برگزیده تلقی می کرد، زیراعدم یقین نشانه ایمان ناقص بود؛ وسیله اثبات این یقین انجام اعمال نیک در فعالیت دنیوی بود. توفیق دریک شغل به عنوان نشانه -و نه وسیله- برگزیدگی محسوب گردید. انباشت ثروت مادام که با فعالیت مجدانه در یک حرفه همراه بود اخلاقأ مجازدانسته میشد؛ ثروت در صورتی محکوم بود که در خدمت یک زندگی توأم با تن آسایی، تجمل، و ترضيه نفس باشد."
درباره مفهوم "دنیوی شدن دین" توضیح میدهد و میگوید که این مفهوم زائیده عذاب کالوینیسم (از فرق پروتستان) است که ناشی از تقدیرگرایی سفت و سخت آن است. هیچ کس مطلقا بخت رستگاری ندارد مگر آن که در جهت اعتلای عظمت خداوند در زمین بکوشد:
"اگر بپرسیم که یک کالوینیست از طریق کدام نتایج خود را قادر به تشخیص ایمان حقیقی میدانست، پاسخ این است: از طریق سلوکی مسیحی که در خدمت افزایش عظمت خدا باشد. اما آنچه را که به افزایش عظمت خدا خدمت می کند می توان از اراده خدا که به نحو مستقیم در کتاب مقدس یا به نحو غیر مستقیم در نظم غايتمند جهانی که آفریده اوست (قانون طبیعت) متجلی می شود دریافت کرد."
سپس به عنوان نمونه برخی از ارزشهای اخلاقی بنیامین فرانکلین را مثال میآورد و مینویسد:
"کلیه رویکردهای اخلاقی فرانکلین رنگ منفعت گرایانه به خود گرفته اند: صداقت سودمند است، زیرا اعتبار تأمین میکند و وقت شناسی، پشتکار، و صرفه جویی نیز فقط به همین دلیل در زمره فضایل محسوب می شوند. منطقأ می توان از این رویکرد چنین استنباط نمود که في المثل اگر در جایی صداقت ظاهری نیز همین نتیجه را به بار آورد کفایت میکند و مازاد غیر ضروری این فضیلت از نظر فرانکلین اسرافی بیهوده محسوب می شود."
توضیح میدهد که فرق پروتستان به شدت و حدت مختلف مخالف لذت گرایی و معتقد به قدرت تزکیه کننده کار بودند در نتیجه در جهان پروتستان زمینه برای فعالیت سرمایهدارانه فراهم میشد چون مردم حق نداشتند از سرمایه فراهم آمده خود برای معاش آسوده بهره ببرند. وبر اهمیت مفهوم Beruf را مشخص میکند که آن را مسامحتا باید شغل یا وظیفه یا سلوک ترجمه کرد و میگوید که این وظیفه در واقع نوعی «ریاضت کشی» برای رسیدن به رستگاری بود:
"ایده کالوینیسم این بود: ضرورت اثبات ایمان در زندگی شغلی دنیوی. بدین ترتیب، کالوینیسم به گروه های وسیع تری از مردم که دارای تمایلات مذهبی بودند انگیزه ای مثبت برای ریاضت کشی بخشید و با بنا کردن اخلاقیات خود بر پایه آموزه تقدیر، اشرافیت روحانی راهبان در خارج و مافوق این جهان را با اشرافیت روحانی متقیان برگزیده خدا در همین جهان جایگزین کرد؛"
Displaying 1 - 30 of 867 reviews