ADVERTISEMENTS:
In this article we will discuss about the Weberian analysis of protestant ethic and capitalism.
Max Weber did not agree with Marx that economic forces alone bring about social change; “Weber saw that there is a direct relation between the practical ethics of a community and the character of its economic system, but he refused to accept the position that the latter determines the former”.
He developed his views in this regard with reference to his thesis on the origin and growth of capitalism in Western Europe in the eighteenth century.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
Max Weber aimed at bringing out clearly the distinctive features of modern Western capitalism, because he looked upon it as a unique historical event. He recognized that Capitalism had appeared at various times in the history of the world and in various places. But he asked himself this question: What made the modern Western Capitalism unique?
As seen by Weber, this kind of capitalism represented a complexity of institutions and institutionalised forms of behaviour. It was founded on the establishment of the Joint Stock Company, stock exchange machinery and introduction of a certain kind of currency and means for making currency exchanges.
Certain political developments were also associated with the evolution of modern capitalism. But, above all, he recognised the necessity for what he called the Spirit (Geist) of Capitalism. According to him, what distinguishes modern Wester.) Capitalism is neither acquisitiveness nor a strong desire to engage in economic adventures. These are undoubtedly present.
But these are ubiquitous and may be found in many kinds of economic activity which obtained in other ages and other places. “What Weber laid his finger on was the set of ethical desiderata associated with the modern form of capitalism; it was a moral outlook, a set of attitudes to life”. This is what he called the Spirit of Capitalism.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
He emphasised the indispensability of this spirit for modern Western Capitalism. “In the last resort, the factor which produced capitalism is the rational permanent enterprise, rational accounting, rational technology, and rational law, but again not these alone. Necessary complementary factors were rational spirit, the rationalisation of the conduct of life in general, and a rationalistic economic ethic”.
His views are expressed in the celebrated book on The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. In this book he endeavored to identify some, if not all, of the origins of capitalism. By the term Spirit of Capitalism, Weber meant a set of attitudes, a belief “in maximising wealth without much consideration of the means as long as the means are efficacious”.
How did this capitalist spirit originate? Weber argued that it was not difficult to see how a well-developed economic and social system could generate such attitudes and thereby enabled them to persist.
But how could they develop initially out of a situation in which the values of people and their habits were so vastly different? He was of opinion that there must have been some particular factor favourable to the emergence of the Spirit of Capitalism.
He discovered it in the rise of the Protestant movement. “Protestantism propagated the traditional Christian virtues of selflessness, humility, and charity”. There were certain elements in the Protestant ethic which were consistent with the Capitalist Spirit.
The Protestant ethic in which Max Weber was interested was essentially Calvinist.
He summarized the Calvinist conception in five points:
(i) There exists an absolute, transcendent God who created the world and rules it. But he is incomprehensible, inaccessible to the finite minds of men.
(ii) This all-powerful and mysterious God has predestined each of us to salvation or damnation, so that we cannot by our works alter a divine decree which was made before we were born.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
(iii) God created the world for his own glory,
(iv) Irrespective of whether he is to be saved or damned, man is obliged to work for the glory of God and to create the kingdom of God on earth,
(v) Earthly things, human nature, and flesh belong to the order of sin and death, and salvation can come to man only through divine grace.
According to Max Weber, all these elements exist separately in other religious conceptions. But their combination in Calvinism is original and unique and entails important consequences.
First, a vision of this order excludes all mysticism, since the communication between the finite minds of the creature on the one hand and infinite mind of God on the other is, by definition, impossible.
By the same token, such a conception is anti-ritualist. The natural order, conceived by such a philosophy, can only be explored by science and not by rituals. Such a religious philosophy is thus contrary to all forms of idolatry and ritualism and is indirectly favorable to the development of scientific research.
Second, what can the Calvinist do in a world-which is so interpreted? Apparently, he must do God’s work. In different periods Calvinists have given different interpretations of what it means to work for the glory of god.
(a) On the basis of the Calvinist vision, one can try, like Calvin himself, to build a republic true to the law of God, a kind of Kingdom of God.
(b) Another interpretation is also conceivable. The Calvinist cannot know whether we will be saved or damned. This may eventually prove to be intolerable.
He will, therefore, be prompted to seek psychological satisfaction by achieving worldly success, including economic success, as a sign of his salvation. The individual is thus driven towards work in order to overcome the anxiety which inevitably results from his uncertainty about his eternal destiny. Work comes to be interpreted as obedience to a commandment of God.
Third, the Protestant ethic calls upon the believer to consider flesh as guilty and to pursue asceticism as an ideal in life. This means that a believer is to work hard and use all rational means in order to maximise his profit for his comfort and for seeking the pleasures of life. This type of attitude and the conduct which follows from this attitude are necessary to the development of capitalism.
Capitalism implies that work is to be rationally organized with a view to maximizing productivity and profit and that the greater part of this profit is to be saved to permit capital accumulation for further economic advance. Thus, a spiritual affinity between the Protestant ethic and capitalist attitude can be clearly established.
Weber’s arguments have been expressed in a very brief compass. Some warning is, however, necessary, so that his view-point is not misunderstood.
As Talcott Parsons points out:
“It is not Weber’s thesis that Protestantism influenced capitalism through religious approval of acquisitive activities, expressed by preachers or otherwise, but because the religious interests of the believing individual directed his action in that direction”. To this may be added another warning.
Weber did not argue that Protestantism caused capitalism. In fact, he explicitly denied anything so crude. He also did not present an idealistic interpretation of history to counter Marx’s materialistic one.
Weber’s last words in his essay on the subject are:
“It is, of course, not my aim to substitute for a one sided materialistic an equally one-sided spiritualistic causal interpretation of culture and of history”.
What Max Weber had in mind was to analyse the extent and nature of the impact of religion upon other aspects of human social structure, particularly upon the economy. His analysis clearly brings out that some religious beliefs, or at least some aspects of them, are seen to facilitate economic activity and that there are also religious beliefs which place obstacles in the way of economic development.
In this connection, reference may be made to the difficulties in under-developed countries where traditional beliefs, often indirectly, but sometimes directly, prevent technological innovations from taking root, and thus hinder a new and more economically viable system to be established. In Weber’s thought, there are two aspects of this problem.
First, he was concerned with beliefs of an ethical and religious kind which had a bearing upon economic values. Second, he was interested in the way in which beliefs conditioned the growth of social groups and the ways in which these groups facilitated or hindered economic development. This kind of enquiry led him to embark on his studies in the sociology of religion.
Alternative Theories of the Rise of Capitalism:
R. H. Tawney points out that ‘Weber’s approach to the problem of growth of capitalism seems to lay too exclusive an emphasis upon intellectual and ethical forces. But his analysis of those forces themselves requires to be supplemented. There are other forces which have a very close bearing on the rise and growth of capitalism.
If all these forces are not taken into account, the discussion remains incomplete and is apt to produce an erroneous impression that capitalism owes its origin to one factor only, viz. the religious orientation of the people. Brentano’s criticism to the effect that the political thought of the Renaissance was as powerful in breaking conventional restraints as the teaching of Calvin merits serious consideration.
Tawney also refers to the favourable environment which contributed to the rise of capitalism. “The rise of new forms of economic enterprise was the result of changes in the character of the economic environment. It was due to the influx of the precious metals from America in the sixteenth century, to the capital accumulated in extra-European commerce, to the reaction of expanding markets on industrial organisation, to the growth of population, to technological improvements made possible by the progress of natural science.”
He further remarks: Why that causation insists can work in only one direction? Is it not a little artificial to suggest that capitalist enterprise had to wait, as Weber appears to imply, till religious changes had produced a capitalist spirit? Would it not be equally plausible, and equally one-sided, to argue that the religious changes were themselves merely the result of economic movements? Weber pursued a single line of enquiry with masterly ingenuity.
His conclusions are illuminating; but they are susceptible, it may perhaps be held, of more than one interpretation. There was action and reaction, and, while Puritanism helped to mould the social order, it was, in its ‘turn, moulded by it.
Loomis and Loomis point out that the teachings of Calvinism did not inspire the businessmen to follow the profit motive and other ascetic ethics. On the contrary, the businessmen adopted the teachings because it suited their purpose.
By way of explanation, they observe as follows:
“The earlier teachings… had put severe restrictions on the businessman. Calvin and the church in general preached unceasingly Against unjust money lenders and avarice. The Council of Geneva, a body made up of businessmen, heard the ministers on thrift and simplicity……….. They were glad to invoke the sanction of religion on traits which their secular activity found valuable—honesty, industry, sobriety, as well as the dynamic interpretation of predestination.”
That the businessmen did not consider the teachings of Calvin in their entirety but accepted only those of his teachings which suited their purpose is corroborated by the fact that Calvin also taught his followers to take to meditation—a far cry from vigorous worldly activity.
Calvin writes:
”With whatever kind of tribulation we may be afflicted, we should always keep this end in view, to habituate ourselves to a contempt of the present life that we may thereby be excited to meditation on that which is to come.”
The Veblenian Analysis:
Veblen is regarded as a technological determinist, because, according to him, men’s habits and mental discipline are moulded by the kind of work by which men live and particularly by the kind of technique which that work involves.
These are the influences “which shape men’s thoughts, their relations with one another, their culture and institutions of control”. Once they are habituated to a particular method of work, their minds are moulded accordingly. The following two statements of Veblen bring out his point of view. One such statements is: “The way of habit is the way of thought”. The second one: As he (man) acts, so he feels and thinks”
Veblen tried to explain social change from this point of view. He observes:
“The evolution of society is substantially a process of mental adaptation on the part-of individuals under the stress of circumstances which will no longer tolerate habits of thought formed under and conforming to a different set of circumstances in the past”.
If, however, a particular section of the population is, for some reason, outside the influence of these circumstances, that section would hinder the process of social change.
In the words of Veblen:
“If any portion or class of society is sheltered from the action of the environment in any essential respect…………… it will………. tend to retard the process of social transformation”.
He considered the wealthy leisure class as belonging to this category. “The wealthy leisure class in such a sheltered position with respect to the economic forces that make for change and readjustment”. He gave an illustration in support of his thesis.
Under a feudal order, production was largely dependent on man-power. The large number of workers had, therefore, to do hard manual work under the direction of a very small number of people. In the words of Veblen: “it represents a system of trained manpower organised on a plan of subordination of man to man”.
He observes further: “it prescribed diligent unremitting toil and obedience to the superiors ….” It is not surprising, therefore, that the state of “subordination of man to man” in the sphere of production was reflected in the social life in terms of a stratified society.
However, the replacement of man-power by mechanical power initiated far-reaching social changes. Under a feudal order, it was necessary, in the interest of production, to keep the large number of workers under subordination and subject them to “diligent unremitting toil”.
The introduction of mechanical power obviated the necessity of subordinating man to man. The thinking pattern of the feudal order also yielded place to new lines of thinking called for by the new economic order based on mechanical power.
According to Veblen, only those who were associated directly with the processes of production experienced this transformation, but not those, such as the wealthy leisure class, who were not directly related to the processes of production.
Hence, there developed within society two different cultures instead of one. But the power of regulating social order in terms of prescribed social norms rests in the hands of the wealthy leisure class.
The prescribed social norms, for obvious reasons, are designed to promote their sectional interests rather than the interests of production or the interests of the large number of workers connected with the processes of production.
The prescribed norms thus represent” at best a wearisome tribulation”. They represent feudal values and ideals and are entirely inconsistent with the demands of economic order based on mechanical power. According to Veblen, the establishment of “industrial-democratic regime” would change the scenario altogether.
Under it, “the influence of technique is more pervasive, and all behaviour is more closely related to the same work-day generalizations. Social attitudes and speculative thought conform more directly to the lessons and impressions derived from the industrial arts. All alike tend to think in terms of mechanism, of geometrical relations, of standardised patterns, of inexorable law”.
For Veblen it is the habit of work of everyday life, be it pastoral, agricultural, industrial of any other form, which is of decisive importance. These habits are embodied in institutions. These institutions intervene “between the material exigencies of life and the speculative scheme of things”.
Veblen points out that “the speculative scheme” may not always correspond to “the material exigencies”, because in times of transition men work in new ways while they still think in terms of the old.
In course of time, however, a correspondence between the two is established. Veblen, therefore, concludes that “social systems reflect technological advance”. He further points out that there would be continuous improvement in the industrial arts toward greater efficiency and that, as a consequence, the evolutionary process would also continue.
In this connection, the views of Veblen may be contrasted with those of Marx. “He (Marx) projects a goal or consummation of social evolution which … will bring about a great liberation of the human spirit and a new social harmony. It is a form of revelation. Veblen………………. offers no revelation, no goal”.