Weber and Religion: The Prophet Motive Weber was concerned to demonstrate, contrary to Marx's thought, that culture was not reducible to the economic aspect of a society. Weber insisted that culture was to be considered as an autonomous value-sphere of any society. We might define such a value-sphere as; "..a distinct realm of activity which has its own inherent dignity and in which certain values, norms, obligations are inherent." (Brubaker:1983) Not only is this value-sphere of culture autonomous but, for Weber, it has the ability to construct forms of economic activity! For Weber, culture is seen as an agent in the production and maintenance of social relations. For whilst culture is based upon choice, value and action- and thus subjective and volatile - it produces real material effects. Clearly Weber is turning Marx on his head! We can, and will demonstrate this below with regard to Weber's `Protestant Ethic' thesis. But this thesis of Weber's is in fact only a part of a wider historical dynamic process suggested by Weber. This historical process is driven by an interaction between charismatic individuals and a (creeping?) process of rationalisation. Influenced by Nietzsche, the German philosopher, Weber was interested in the existence and distribution of charisma in society. Charismatic individuals were seen as the driving force behind social groups and collectives. Three points should be noted with regard to Weber's use of the concept of charisma. First that it is not every individual who can take on the role of the `charismatic' leader. Only exceptional individuals. Thus `charisma' produces status stratification. Secondly, charisma is not, for Weber, ... ... middle of paper ... ...eaven or Valhalla etc.. 2. The tension in each individual between how they want the world to be and how it actually is becomes heightened. Especially in terms of the inner-life, the soul, of individuals. 3. A system of morality. How to act towards nature and towards other human beings. For example: `The Ten Commandments'. Each religion devises a system of Ethics. Thus religions produce value-orientations for the culture and society. Weber never understates the power of the prophet. Not only has the prophet the necessary charisma but s/he uses this to `rationalise' the world. But it is the charisma that acts as: `..the great revolutionary force.' In terms of his `types' of social action. Religion utilises and advances the third value-rational form. Here the action is motivated by a higher ideal such as god. But the prophets' intentions and motives are thwarted!
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.
While growing up in Germany Max Weber witnessed the expansion of cities, the aristocracy being replaced by managerial elite, companies rapidly rising, and the industrial revolution. These changes in Germany, as well as the rest of the western world, pushed Weber to analyze the phenomenon, specifically to understand what makes capitalism in the west different and how capitalism was established. In The Protestant Ethic and The Spirit of Capitalism, Weber explains that capitalism is all about profit and what creates the variance between capitalism in the west and the rest of the world is rationalization, “the process in which social institutions and social interaction become increasingly governed by systematic, methodical procedures and rules”
3). One concept that Weber would disagree with Durkheim about is his attitude towards functionalism, Durkheim believed that coherence versus class conflict helps to define a society, and Durkheim towards Weber would argue that conflict is inevitable. Weber believed that class conflict was essential within a society’s social order and opposing opinions were necessary. In my opinion Durkheim would agree with Weber’s view on religion due to a more modern society being based upon just that which helps to view it in a way in which society must depend upon religion like a political system. Weber would agree with Durkheim about empiricism which states “that knowledge comes only or primarily from sensory experience” (wikipedia.com/empiricism). relating to his own view on rationalization.
The major weaknesses of his book is the absence of contextual analysis. Since the principles he presents are fundamental for Protestantism, it could be necessaire to show in what context these principle were developed. The contextual analysis could help to understand the motivation of the leader of protestant movement and could allow to make a reel analysis of the impact of Protestantism ethic on the spirit of capitalism. Without the knowledge of the context it can be subjective to conclude that Protestantism influenced the capitalism. For example, in the United States, the spirit of self-confidence was necessary for the survival of the first immigrants. Since, they had not any protection, in order to survive, they should have a self-confidence. When the context in which each principle were developed are understanding, it become easy to appreciate their
Max Weber and Karl Marx, two prolific Sociologists who share different views with the origins and development of modern capitalism. They wanted to understand the rise of capitalism, the causes of it, as well as the direction it was heading. As they started to dissect capitalism they developed two separate conclusions generated from completely different factors. It’s hard to fathom the fact that Weber and Marx could arrive at two distinct conclusions while studying a similar event. They took two separate angles of approach, which caused them to have to opposing theories. Due too Weber and Marx approaching capitalism from different angles, their views of the dynamics, and the understanding of the origins differed.
Weber, on the other hand, tried to look at the macro-sociological phenomenon in his explanation. Weber felt that there is just more than one explanation for the causes of change. Marx’s perspective was not based on the conflict of ideas, but rather on the conflict of classes. This conflict is the result of a new mode of production. According to Marx, history would consist of epochs of modes of production.
Max Weber’s outlines his views on religion and capitalism in his book, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. Weber held the important theory that an individual’s views are significant in promoting social change, not material things as believed by former theorists. In his work, Weber compares two waves of “the calling” as preached by different Protestant leaders and describes the teaching and spread of ascetic beliefs among followers. This paper considers the context of the calling, explores the outward signs of grace which helped develop capitalism and, lastly, how capitalism, through rationalization, transformed Calvinist ideals for its advancement. According to Weber’s findings, individualistic views arose through Protestant beliefs.
Religion has a great influence on people, providing faith and direction to each individual while controlling a co...
Some sociologists claim that what changes primarily is the social system and religious change is an effect of the change in the former. It is not religion but, to a larger extent, the economy that is supposed to legitimize reality. From this perspective it is the social system that changes and this change in relation to religion means secularization, which generally speaking means the diminishing impact of religion on social life at various levels, degrees and intensities. Theories such as Luckmann’s privatization thesis or Hervieu-Le´ger’s emotional theory of religion may be categorized as giving priority to changes within the individual. The fundamental thought is that in contemporary society it is primarily the individual who changes. It is the individual that seeks direct contact with the sacral sphere, is driven by emotion, feeling, a personal and individualized need. The third current of theoretical solutions to the question of what predominates in modern and post-modern changes is the one that points to religion itself as the sphere of these changes. It is neither the society nor the individual, but rather religion that is pushed to the forefront of the phenomenon. Religion in confrontation with modernity takes on new forms which function well in the modern
According to Max Weber, there are three types of authority: traditional, legal-rational, and charismatic. Traditional authority is based on traditions and customs; for example, parents are a type of traditional authority since individuals are taught to respect and listen to their parents from a young age (Weber, 12). Legal-rational authority is based on relation to laws, rules, and the government; an example of a legal-rational authority would be the police due to its association with the government and its task of enforcing the law (Weber, 13). Unlike these two types of authority, charismatic authority is solely based on the personality of the leader such as the degree of charisma the leader has and how well his interpersonal skills are (Weber, 12). Charismatic authority may seem very simplistic as it is just based on personality, yet it is this very aspect that allows for the emergence of polar-opposite charismatic leaders. Furthermore, the simple basis allows for the leaders to guide the group towards any direction they desire, and this makes the distinction between certain charismatic leaders prominent. The contrast
William H. Swatos, Jr., ed. Twentieth-Century World Religious Movements in Neo-Weberian Perspective. Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen Press, 1992.
According to the theory of charismatic leadership, a charismatic leader is a leader who displays certain behaviors and expertise when certain situations exist, and this combination causes followers to attribute charisma back to the leader. Charisma is a trait that is being felt and then attributed to a leader by followers. This makes charisma rare but easily observed when in existence. Max Weber believed that Charisma occurs during a social crisis, when a leader emerges with a radical vision that offers a solution to the crisis (Yukl, 2006)
Weber saw religion from a different perspective; he saw it as an agent for change. He challenged Marx by saying that religion was not the effect of some economical social or psychological factor. But that religion was used as a way for an explanation of things that cause other things. Because religious forces play an important role in reinforces our modern culture, Weber came to the conclusion that religion serves as both a cause and an effect. Weber didn’t prose a general theory of religion but focused on the interaction between society and religion. Weber believed that one must understand the role of religious emotions in causing ideal types such as capitalism. He explained the shift in Europe from the other worldliness of Catholicism to the worldliness of early Protestantism; according to Weber this was what initiated the capitalist economic system.
Max Weber had much to say about the organization of capitalism and the disparity of the system, but unlike others, Weber also paid a lot of attention to the traditional, non-monetary incentives underlying social action. Weber wrote extensively about religion, though both he and Durkheim had a functional perspective on religion. Weber was more concerned with the functional perspective of religion while Durkheim focused particularly on how social order was possible within a religious context. Weber’s idea of the iron cage was significant as he believed that society was no longer driven by non- physical conception, such as religious values but instead by economic interests. He believed that work shouldn’t be just our occupation and inclination; Weber believe that the strains of our capitalist society has become so prevalent and governing that we are forced into fulfilling rational costs to benefit the expectations of the capitalist marketplace. Thus Max Weber asserts that in order to relinquish rational control we must live in this so called iron cage for the greater good on society. “Furthermore the puritans believed that fate decreed that the cloak should become an iron cage” (lecture November 6, 2013)[Footnote]. He further stated these ideal were that material goods have gained an increasing and ultimately an unavoidable power. The material goods has contributed to keeping us trapped in this iron cage, and for many individuals it has become the rational choice to stay there, rather than to follow the values of religion. Weber would conclude that within our society today, we have given the attitude of involved reasonableness which pervades so many aspects of our lives and of our culture as a whole; creating an iron cage of econom...
Weber defined charismatic leadership as “resting on devotion to the exceptional sanctity, heroism, or exemplary character of an individual person, and of the normative patters or order revealed or ordained by him”. (QUOTE) Northouse defines charismatic leadership the same as transformational leadership. Many of history’s prominent leaders have been considered to be charismatic leaders. The question is often raised if charismatic leaders are formed by their surrounding environment or if the characteristics of a charismatic leader are innate and decided before birth. While the definitive opinion of Northouse on the debate is unknown, Weber believes the ability to be a charismatic leader is a divine right and of superhuman origin. While the origin of the ability to be charismatic is still looming, there is one thing that is for certain, charismatic leaders are extremely effective. Charismatic leaders are generally followed by those who unquestionably have faith in them. The followers relinquish all forms of independence from their follower and truly believe in them. These leaders have the ability to “run the room” so to speak, and they are able to captivate a room merely by their powerful and warming personality. Weber surrounds his theory around charisma being the idea that it is not a trait but rather a working and outstanding relationship between the leader and the followers.