Customer Reviews

The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism

5 star:		(22)
4 star:		(12)
3 star:		(6)
2 star:		(3)
1 star:		(4)

 

 

The Dover edition of the book has been bound so tightly that it's difficult to turn the pages--and to read the words, which are nearly swallowed up by the binding. It feels like if you force it at all, the whole binding will come unglued.

It may be cheap, but it *feels* so extremely cheap that it's just not worth the money saved. Buy yourself another edition--or for that matter, just get the text free online. Anything's better than trying to read this edition.

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.

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.

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 Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism is CLASSIC - and should be a mandatory read for every student of sociology. Unfortunately, the classic literature of sociology isn't emphasized enough in today's educational institutions. Students are entering the real world without the foundation of social prophets and coming up with their own ideas of "what the world is coming to," and taking credit for ideology that has long been debated and written down by masterminds such as Weber. Pay attention! What is this book really about? This is a revolutionary work discussing critically the causes and effects of sociological chance, and how the sociology of religion has changed meaning because of the philosophy we now base our ideas on. Anyone interested in postmodern theory, the iron cage of bureaucracy, rationalization, and even symbolic interactionism should read this before continuing to literature of modern sociological thought.

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 especially 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

This is a brialliant yet problematic work. It is primarily concerned with showing how the ideals of early capitalism were mirroed and shaped by the ideals of Calvinism. It is NOT an attempt to show Protestantism as the casue of capitalism. Weber regarded this as foolish, but too many who pick up this book for the first time read it this way. Weber's theory of the Iron Cage is important and stunnningly extended by Daniel Bell in the Cultural Contradictions of Capitalism.This book was translated 17 years before the next important work of Weber's, which caused much scholarship of him to reduce him to the content of this text. Don't fall into that trap. Weber is one of the hardest thinkers to reliably abstract in history. Most Weberians and Neo-Weberians are still radically at odds with each other over what his opus meant. Heck, Thomas Burger almost gets violent in his criticism of other Weberian interpretations.The primarary error of setting this as Weber's monolithic work is to set Weber as Marx's counterbalance. He "turned Marx on his head" mainly to Weber's contemporaries in Germany, many of whom had accepted religion as an opiate of the masses unworthy of scholarship. It is far easier to understand Weber is you compare him with Rickert. Better yet, read Weber's on work on methodology of the social sciences and his alter works that explored hte religious, political and social worlds.

Weber's "Protestant Ethic" was originally published in 1904-1905 and later in a second, revised edition (1920). This edition is the second edition, and the translator is Talcott Parsons.
In "The Protestant Ethic" Weber famously attempts to explain how the spirit of modern rational capitalism emerged; and he essentially argues that an important part in this process was played by what he termed ascetic protestantism or different types of Protestantism that were activistic and ascetic (most famously Calvinism).
Ascetic Protestantism energized businessmen and workers, and valorized a new type of capitalism: rational capitalism which is much more methodical and dynamic in nature than the type of capitalism that existed in Europe in the 1500s ("traditional capitalism"). Today rational capitalism has conquered society and turned it into an iron cage (to use Parsons' famous translation of two words in German that are more accurately - and less imaginatively - translated as "steelhard casing").
"The Protestant Ethic" is by far the most famous sociological study and is unsurpassed in theoretical boldness and creativity. Parsons said that he found it as exciting to read as a detective novel. Most of us have to struggle quite a bit with it - but it is definitely worth it!

Max Weber's thesis that the Protestant work-ethic helped give rise to the spirit of modern capitalism is well known, but how true is it? Weber goes into an impressive review of historical details on how Luther's concept of the calling became the Calvinist concept of labor to glorify God, and finally the Puritan concept that is applied to business as well as anything else. In short, the Protestant hard-work ethic, intended to be a sign of election and to glorify god, inadvertently (at least in part) gave birth to the spirit of capitalism, of sustained, planned, methodical profit-making. Though capitalism is no longer dependent upon religion for maintaining its ethos (we are all caught in the rat race), it is fascinating how Weber makes a compelling case that a once anti-materialist Protestant Christianity came to affirm the capitalist spirit by way of a hard-working ethic. Many of Weber's themes are persuasive, if also controversial. Weber has by no means isolated the final or full cause of the take-off of capitalism in modern times, but he has made a good case for one contributing factor. Would that his style of writing had been a bit more direct - Weber's insights are at least worth careful reading.

This is a very concise and succinct exploration of the role of four major branches of religious thought to come out of the Reformation: Lutheranism, Methodism, Anabaptist and Calvinism. His exploration of ascetism within these specific religious philosophies and their impact on capitalism is as insightful as I have ever read. Having personal and extensive experience amongst some of the reminant religious communities still functioning in North America, I must say his objectivity in a such a subjective subject makes for a lucid and enlightening read. If you do not have some background in Reformation and northern European history of this time, you may miss much of what he's trying to convey. He demonstrates that he is a true scholiast of this subject. Have your dictionary handy!!!