Customer Reviews

The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism

5 star:		(7)
4 star:		(4)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

this book was somewhat difficult to get through because of the footnotes (i have trouble with footnotes), once you get that point though, it's a fantastic book. it discusses why the capitalist system we have now, and the morality we have now is the way it is. we have all heard of the protestant ethic yes? it is that you must work hard, without pleasuring yourself too much, for the sake of pleasing god. working as hard as you can allows a person to 'most effectively' utilize the gifts god has given them, but they cannot take pleasure in the fruits if this because too much pleasure would result in the breaking of some sin, greed or sloth or what have you, pretty much all of them can be connected i'm sure. but if you can't have fun with what you're working so hard to create, why work so hard? because you are pleasing god, setting yourself up for the next life if you will. well this is wonderful for a historical reference, but we're very much secularized in society today so why does any of this matter? well, weber contends that a man named calvin (yes calvinism) took the protestant ethic and tied it to capitalism. calvin took the protestant ethic, which was good because it got things done with little complaint from the workers, and connected it to the economic system by turning god into money. we can imagine the problems with this, if nothing else, there would be trouble behind the fact that what motivated people before was spiritual, and now we expect the same results because of different motivations. that's like using a car to float down a river instead of a boat. ya cars go forward wonderfully, on the medium they were designed for.

so now we all ascetically put ourselves into our work towards the end of making more money. i'm not a history buff so i don't know if this is true or was just used as an example of how religion effected capitalism, but i don't really care as i can see the connections between the protesant ethic and our capitalist morality.

weber calls where we are now the iron cage, kind of pessimistic, but he believes that now we're here, we're stuck here. we can't get out of the mental state we are in now, which i don't necessarily agree with, but can see how someone could. if you leave the economic system today, chances are you'll end up on the street. i think this is my favourite quote, it's right at the end of the book and sums up the final point quite well.

"No one knows who will live in this cage in the future, or whether at the end of this tremendous development entirely new prophets will arise, or there will be a great rebirth of old ideas and ideals, or, if neither, mechanized petrification, embellished with a sort of convulsive self- importance. For the last stage of this cultural development, it might well be truly said: Specialists without spirit, sensualists without heart; this nullity imagines that it has attained a level of civilization never achieved before "

an eye opener to say the least, but a really good read.

The main point in Weber's *The Protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism* is that the Protestant ethic helped to shape values favorable to the birth of capitalism. Despite that, the author isn't a cultural determinist because he takes care to point out that values help to shape an outcome, but don't produce it for certain.

This book is quite interesting, and includes lots of interesting observations regarding Weber's main premise, despite not being overly long. For instance, the author says that due to the fact that Protestant ethic viewed hard work as a duty and looked down on excesive luxuries, Protestants were indirectly encouraged to save almost all the money they earnt, thus increasing the funds available for the capitalist process. Of course, there are many more examples that contribute to give weight to Weber's argument, but to know more you will need to read *The protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism* ...

Weber analyses some data at his disposal, and that makes some chapters slightly less engaging. Notwithstanding that, this book is likely to be worth your time and your money. To start with, you will learn quite a few interesting facts you probably were unaware of before. Secondly, and in a more frivolous vein, you will finally know what everybody is talking about when they mention directly or indirectly this book from time to time :)

All in all, I recommend this book to those interested in Sociology or Cultural Studies, but also to curious people who want to know more about the influence of culture in different processes. Enjoy it !

Belen Alcat

As it is one of the most important and influential masterpieces in the history of the social science, if you can understand the analytical methods used in this book, the rest is few. Since even the details are interesting, I stress the structure of this book.
The first part is the proposal of the question. Found on several statistical analysis, the following problem is arisen; why merchants and manufactures were willing to be protestant, which has the much severer attitude to desires in the world than Catholic?
The reason is the estimation of the job. Their preference is bound to their social situation in the Middle. This is the fundamental leading discipline of Weber.
The second part is the results of such Protestantism. They willingly entered them, which obligate their work as sacred. Then, what happened as results? The main influence is brought by the predetermined dogma, which means that the fatal of people has already been determined before their birth. It makes people disinterruptedly anxious and stress, because nothing to do is useful for the salvation in this world. Its psychology became the engine for the world to be free from the magic.
His existential analysis of Protestantism attracts readers even now and we applause it, but in his eyes their psychology was bound by their social situations. His analysis seems to stress the psychological change at the second stage to have believed in them, but he shows the importance of the motivation at the first stage to have entered into them.
This overview may make clear the composition of his analysis. However, maybe, almost all readers will forget this framework in the face of his analysis' seriosity.

My spin is that Weber's work is helpful in that so many writers reference him that you need to know what he said in order to comprehend the point they're making. Having said that, I think Weber has some validity, but his sociological explanation of how socieites fuction is lacking.

He does not equate capitalism with greed. He explicitly states that and goes on to define a capitalistic economic action as "one which rests on the expectation of profit by the utilization of opportunities for exchange, that is on (formally) peaceful chances of profit."

Weber contends that "business leaders and owners of capital, as well as the higher grades of skilled labor, and even more the higher technically and commercially trained personnel of modern enterprises are overwhemingly Protestant." He goes on to discuss how the teachings of Calvinism bring this about. He talks about stewards on earth having heaven as an ultimate goal. This is a classic, thought provoking book.

This book is the founder of the prolific field of eocnomic sociology. It introduces the concept that culture (in the form of the protestant ethic) is better adapted to fit capitalism. Therefore, capitalist growth was found more frequently in protestant societies than in others.

Since Webber, there has been much study of this topic, with some of the main names being Lawrence Harrison (focusing on the culture of underdevelopment) and Francis Fukuyama (focusing on how trusting societies benefit economically). Both and others push the frontiers initially established by Webber.

Though controversial especially today in the period of political correctness, Webber presents a strong mainly anecdotal case (given the absense of many statistical tools at the time) of why protestant societies succeed in capitalism; his main argument (though there are many other important ones) is that it is socially acceptable in protestant societies to make a profit, whereas it may be considered immoral in other societies, such as catholic ones.

This is a good theoretical book with a few good anecdotes. It is for someone interested in the history of sociology, especially as it pertains to economics. If you are just looking for a link between culture or religion and economics, look at Larry Harrison.

THE PROTESTANT ETHIC AND THE SPIRIT OF CAPITALISM by Max Weber is the kind of book which I imagined was important in my youth. I find it difficult, now, but not because anything which is says is any less true than it ever was. As history goes, it is some of the most thoughtful. The problem is that we are no longer living in history. Comparing ourselves to the contents of this book confirms that society is now at the level of farce, and likely to remain so. This conclusion might not strike anyone starting the book for the first time, but it ought to grab anyone who is capable of comprehending Chapter 3, "Luther's Conception of the Calling."

My point of view works best if it is accepted that, as America now stands, it can only be understood as a nation of shoppers. The large and still growing amount by which imports exceeds exports requires that the entire world maintains this view for monetary stability. The political parties might pretend to be theoretically split between those who use the government as a means of shopping for people's needs and those who would enhance the ability to make big bucks, but neither party can, in actuality, represent with their whole heart those who picture government as the ultimate shopper, which ought to be able to provide people with what they would not otherwise have, whether through liberal social programs or by imposing rigid security provisions and covert activities. Thinking about how well secret military tribunals or jailing users of illegal substances actually functions, as applied to "others," strike me as being an absurd application of Luther's "observation that the division of labour forces every individual to work for others." Both parties, to maintain their existence in such a tipsy world, must appeal to those who would maintain "the privileged position, legal or actual, of single great trading companies." Only the American ability to convince the world that everyone who takes our money for their products fully shares the ability of Americans to benefit from such great wealth can maintain such a situation as "a traditionalist interpretation based on the idea of Providence. The individual should remain once and for all in the station and calling in which God had placed him, and should restrain his worldly activity within the limits imposed by his established station in life. While his economic traditionalism was originally the result of Pauline indifference, it later became that of a more and more intense belief in divine providence, which identified absolute obedience to God's will, with absolute acceptance of things as they were." The uses of two "Absolute"s in that sentence is what frightens me. Any sign of inability to adapt to a future which includes vast changes is a bad characteristic for a modern society, and the modern economy seems to be headed in a direction that will no longer provide great wealth to all who expect it. In such a situation, anyone might consider the words of Milton in "Paradise Lost," as quoted by Max Weber, which points out that people are able:

To leave this Paradise, but shall possess
A Paradise within thee, happier far.

The next paragraph suggests, "The appeal to national character is generally a mere confession of ignorance, and in this case it is entirely untenable." The difference between what Max Weber is trying to describe and what I'm thinking is what makes this kind of book so difficult to read, and I wouldn't be surprised if you haven't read it.

This book is legendary. Max Weber arguably was the first social scientists who devoted his life's work to cross-cultural studies. His pioneering study of "The protestant ethic..." combines a broad, almost universal, vision of human desires and ideas with painstaking details of how certain religious movements transformed the economic basis of feudal Europe, and later the United States, into an economy of competition and free enterprise. The drive in early capitalism, Weber shows, was an inherent
religious belief in money as a means of eternal salvation. Trough accumulating more wealth, capitalists were trying to prove for themselves that they were worthy of God's grace and hence were secured an afterlife in Paradise. However, spending money was not an option for these capitalists. It was considered a sin to use capital gains to satisfy carnal and worldly desires ( compare with Enron and Worldcom executives). Wealth was in many ways protected by a fear of God.

Weber's work is, among other things, a great example of what happens when research goes bad. His work is most significant to academia because it shows what can happen when a researcher mistakenly assumes a causal relationship between two variables that are simply coincidentally related. Religion and capitalism is an excellent example and a call to vigilance for all researchers. It is particularly pertinent to this study where it might be easy to conclude too hastily about relationships between a respondent's religious, ethnic backgrounds, political affiliation or knowledge and the respondent's opinions.
It is now obvious the world that there is no link between Protestant religion and successful capitalism. Japan, Singapore, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Saudi Arabia and other nations that do not have Protestant Christianity as the primary religion in the country have become economically powerful. Nonetheless Weber's classic must be read, both as an example of a great mind and to show how even a great scholar can be lead astray. It is a reminder to all people to think critically at all times. For what seems obviously correct at the time, might very well be proved to be absolutely invalid.

Rather than a general theory or explanation of either economics or religion, Weber attempts to draw a specific link between what he sees as the conjunction of the work ethic of Protestant (mainly Calvinist) spiritual teachings, and the success of Western European Capitalism.

Weber is an astute analyst, in many ways. He rightly notes that often the 'sine qua non' of Capitalism is thought of as "greed". Arguing against this notion, Weber points out that all societies have had greedy people within their particular economic system-greed is thus a factor irrespective of economic systems. Replacing this, Weber proposes that the "spirit" of Capitalism be thought of as a particular moral attitude towards work and idleness-an attitude that holds that constant and diligent work for its own sake is a moral imperative. In the face of what Weber calls "the radical elimination of magic from the world" this work ethic was the existential option left for people in terms of atonement and personal compensation for inadequacies. I believe that these two insights are right on target.

If there is a weakness involved in his characterization of this Protestant "Ethic," it lies in the fact that Weber attempts to draw a strict dichotomy in the origins of this ethic. He states forcefully that this ethic does not come out of any Enlightenment thought. The problem with trying to separate this ethic from the Enlightenment, is that this ethic which posits diligent work for its own sake is clearly found in the ethics of Immanuel Kant, who classified this kind of work and labor as a "duty" (ethical rule) that the self has to itself. In other words, how much of this is the legacy of the Reformation and how much of this is the legacy of the Enlightenment?

The necessity for this kind of work also appears in the ethics of Hegelian philosophy. Hegel characterizes work as a means of the realization of Spirit within the human self, since the performance of duties which one would not normally choose to do can be thought of as a deliberate placing of oneself in the context of alienation. The individual then, through diligent "work," attempts to convert that which is foreign (antithetical) to the self into that which is of the self. Work is thus a means of overcoming a system of deliberate self-alienation, and is vitally necessary. Kant and Hegel, clearly two giants of Enlightenment thought, both maintain that the essence of diligent work is to become, not acquire-acquisition is a by-product and consequence of work. This is very similar to Weber's characterization of this ethos.

Another problem arises when we attempt to draw a strict separation between the worldly attitudes of Catholic monasticism and this "Protestant Ethic." While it is certainly true that Catholic monasticism placed a high degree of value on contemplatio, Catholic dogma, from Augustine through Gregory the Great and onwards, held explicitly that one must always return to work in the world-contemplatio was always insufficient in itself as a mode of being. Biblically, this was often seen in light of the Hebrew story of Rachel and Leah, as well as the Greek story of Mary and Martha. The contemplative life is certainly of "higher" value in Catholic thought, yet it must be seen as returning the soul to the life of activity, lest the soul run the risk of the heresy of "Quietism." Some forms of Catholic mysticism ran into heretical issues precisely because they held that the life of activity should be abandoned. So, while there may be a difference in degree, we should be careful not to draw a stronger split than is there. Weber writes as if only Luther or Calvin has the concept of a life's "calling," when this was always already part of Catholicism too.

This entire issue actually has its roots in Greek political philosophy, where we see a clear tension between the "practical life", and the "contemplative life." The issue persists into Roman life. We can even see some evidence of this type of Protestant ethos in Stoicism, which held that the active pursuit of virtue and public activity was the highest good. Contrast to Epicureanism, which held that the private, quiet study of philosophy and other pleasures, away from worldly life, was the highest good. The issue, of course, reemerges in Christian thought. But for all of its force in Protestantism, we must not take a myopic view that this was somehow unique to Protestantism in Western intellectual thought. Other factors than religion must have also played a role in the development of capitalism.

The role of Judiasm is Weber's biggest problem. According to his own endnotes, Jews enjoy more economic success and motivation---so why would Protestantism give birth to Capitalism?

We should nonetheless congratulate Weber for attempting to take a close look at the interactions between religious and economic thought. Like Marx, his work serves a good framework to examine the way religious thought influences and inteacts with factors like world economics.

As a generous present to all would-be social critics, Max Weber left us with "The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism," probably the most insightful work ever written on the social effects of advanced capitalism, or "geselleschaft": psychological repression, bureaucracy, conformity, etc. Unfortunately for him, he went absolutely nuts after writing it. As a political scientist, I cherish Weber solely for his definition of the state as having a "monopoly of legitimate coercion". Having brilliant insights like this on a regular basis, however, apparently drove Weber further and further from sanity over the course of his life. The tragedy for Weber . . . well, he had many of them. He spent most of his life in the rubber room, and he didn't have a particularly happy marriage, based on the biography written by his wife Marianne. These Germans are not party animals, you know. They need to go to Club Med in the winter. These are the first examples of seasonal-affective disease; before they had those lamps. Don't laugh! I have one! I can't make it through the day without my lamp. If Weber were Marx, which he wasn't, although he really dug nudism. He liked all these young people doing it, including D.H. Lawrence and his German wife. He thought that was really swell. Anyway, buy this book . . . unless you value your sanity, your religion, and the very social fabric of your nation itself.