Analysis Of Max Weber's The Protestant Ethic And The Spirit Of Capitalism

1b. Provide an analysis of pages 298-303 (starting at […] on 298 and ending at “employer’s organized life. […]”) of Weber’s “The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism” in the Calhoun reader. Identity with specific reference to the text what is the key argument that Weber develops in this section.
Based on this segment from Max Weber’s The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, it appears that the primary focus of the work was to refute the proposal of “”superstructure” theorists” (Weber in Calhoun 2012: 299), by providing examples to indicate that a capitalist economy is an unnatural social system, and does not unfold as these theorists claim. Weber focuses primarily on Benjamin Franklin as a proponent of Capitalism, (seemingly)

What is Simmel’s understanding of the relationship between the growth in size of societies and individuality as delineated in the section “Freedom and Individuality” (pg 376-380)? Briefly compare this to Durkheim’s account of the growth in the size of societies and individuality.
Based on “Freedom and Individuality”, Simmel largely perceives a positive relationship between the size or growth of society and individualism to function, but proposes that the size of the society alone does not solely determine levels of individuality. He promptly delivers his thesis, saying “the larger circle encourages individual freedom, the smaller one restricts it.” (Simmel in Calhoun 2012: 376) Simmel then goes on to describe the role of individuality within society, discussing positive aspects such as freedom and fluidity, and potentially negative aspects such as the “negative freedom of no differentiation” and loss of collective consciousness/identity. As the group grows and expands, collective identity is weakened and the original pressure to conform is relieved (to an extent), allowing for a greater opportunity for individualism to thrive in an increasingly flexible environment, at the expense of certain aspects of common culture and identity. Simmel also reflects on the difficulties associated with individualism for the individual, such as increasing difficulty trying to establish and exude one’s own unique personality within such an individualistic and flexible environment. Toward

(Weber in Calhoun 2012: 273/4) In his opinion, if social science was to be reliable, social scientists would have to establish an accurate and precise system, similar to what may be employed within the natural sciences. The purpose of ideal types was to increase objectivity and decrease subjective randomness in the studies and accounts of subjective social facets. These ideal types were widely accepted and available to all the social schools so that a common system of study may be used to understand and analyze society, eliminating misunderstandings and communication errors.
In contrast, Durkheim’s social methodology relied on the treatment of social facts as objective facts (Durkheim in Calhoun 2012: 201), discounting subjective interpretation. He emphasized that social facts exist prior to thoughts, in other words, social facts existed before being defined and judged, and were produced organically. Under his methodology, social scientists were to observe the essence of these social facts directly, before eliminating traditional and general values in any attempt to study the