The Political and Social Theory of Max Weber: Collected Essays

丁he Political and Social Theory of Max Weber

萨

21

S

J J 并

.

.

153339

The Political and Social Theory ofMaxWeber Collected Essays Wo!{ga咆J. MOI1仰

叫

.， A""

二

2、沪

‘

'奋'

‘

，~

j

The University ofChicago Pre军军. Chicago 60在 37 Polity Pr在sS， Cam各ridge 。 1989 by Wolfgang J. Mommsen

Al I rights reserved. Publíshed

1 争89

Printed in Great Britain 98 97 96 95 94 93 92 亨 1 90 在争

S4 3 2 1

Library of Congress Cata!oging-in-Public在 tion Dat在 Mommsen, Wo!悖吨].， 193 0幽 The polirical and social theory ofMax Weber:collected essays / Wolfgang J. Mommsen. p. cm. lndudes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 0- 2. 26-53398-0 (alk. paper) 1. Weber, Max , 1 龄4- 1 9 20 … Conrribmions in polirical scÎ encè. 2. Weber, Ma x, 1864-19却叫翩。Conrriburions in sociology. l. Tide. ]C263.W42M66 1989 88-3岳95 0 3 0岳 '.2咄.dc 1 争

This book is printed on acid-free paper拿

CIP

Conte旦ts

muxum -EA--

Pref二ce

PAR丁 IPOLI丁ICS

霉

Acknowledgements Bibliographical Note and A七七reviarions

•••

,.•

AND SOCIAL 丁HEORY

Politics and Scholarship: τhe Two Icons in Max Weber's Life Z 丁he Antinomical Structure of Max Weber's Political 丁hought 3 Max Weber's Theo町 ofLegitimacy Today 1

PAR丁 II

3 24 44

MAX WEBER ON SOCIALISM AND PO口丁ICAL RADICALISM

4 Capitalism and Socialism: Webe室's Dialogue wi也 Ma~ S Joining the Underdogs? Weber's Critique of the Social Democrats in Wìlhelmine Germany 6 Roberto Michels and Max Weber: Moral Conviction versus the Politics ofResponsibility

S3 74

87

PAR丁1Il THEDEV卫LOPMENT

OF MAX WEBER'S TH芜ORETICAL IDEAS

7 Max Weber on Bureaucracy and Bu苦恼lcratization: 丁hreat to Liberty and Instrument of Cre主tive Action 8 Ideal T ype and Pure 丁ype: Two Variants ofMax Weber's Ideal-typical Method

109

121

Contents

vl

9 Rationalization and Myth in Weber's Tho吨k 10 The Two Dimensions ofSocial Change in Max Weber's Sociological T扯。巧 PARTIV 丁过且 REDISCOVERY 11

Max Weber in Modern Soci在l 丁hought

Notes Index

133 145

OF MAX WEBER 16 9 197 21 9

铲队

Preface

In tl始 spring .of 198 S 1 was invited by Pr.ofess.or Anth.ony Giddens t.o give a lecture c.ourse .on Max Weber in the Facu坷。f S.ocial and P.olitical Sciences at Cambridge Universi叩. Thus 1 w在s enc.ouraged to present Max Weber's views .on p.olitical and s.ocial the。可 in a sezi岱.of lecrures dev.oted t.o the main themes .of his p.olitical and s.ocial 出.ought. Weber's views .on liberalism and c.onstituti.onal dem.ocracy, .on Marxism and Wilhelmine S.ocÍal Dem.ocrats, .on bureaucratizati.on as a p.otential threat t.o liberal society but als.o as a t.o.ol .of effective g.overnment, and lasr1y his the.ory .of legitimate d.ominati.on and charismatic leadership, are inrrinsically linked with .one 在n.other. P.olitics, s.ocial the。可 and 主ist.ory cann.ot be separated neatly in his th.ought; rather they must be seen as aspects .of .one and the same reali町， and n.one .of these aspects can be analysed in iS.olati.on. This was the message 1 wished t.o七ring acr.oss t.o the students in my Cambridge lectures. 丁汝 material included in 出is book far exceeds the .original series .of1ectures, ampli马ing the ideas 1was able t.o devel.op there. It is based in part .on essays which have already been published but which have been th.or.oughly revised and updatedf.ort比ìs publicati.on. The fìrst part, 'P.olitics and S.ocial 丁he.ory'， is dev.oted 抬出.e intimate relati.onship between p.olitics and s.ocial research in Weber's pers.onal career. The 自rst essay, .on ‘P.olitics 在nd Sch.olarship', dem.onstrates 也at Weber's pa划onate p.olitical en伊gement and his sch.olar与 activities cann.ot be simply divided int.o separate c.omp缸tments. H.owever much Weber himself str.ovef.or .o乌jectivity in his sch.olarly w.ork, many .ofits fundamental features were derived 丘.om his p.olitical experience. Certainly he did n.ot wish his academic w.ork t.o be diluted by p.olitical partisanship; yet it was certainlyinfluenced by the insights int.o the nature .of p.olitica1 rule and the exercise .of p.ower which he acquired whi1e being actively engaged in c.ontemp.orary p.olitics.

V1ll

P咕ce

In his political views Max Weber never followed narrow pa町 lines. Even though he considered himself a liberal and in 1919εven embarked upon active election campaigning for the German Democratic Party, in his political theo巧 主εaccommodated altogether different political viewpoints. In doing so , however, Max Weber did not look for easy compromises or for pragmatic, commonsensical solutions. On the contrary, in a J飞-Tietzschean manner he attempted to follow alternative lines ofinquiry at the same time, pursuing each political position to its ultimate conceivable conclusion so that he eventually arrived at what may be called antinomical positions of a mutua l1y exclusive character. This is also re f1 ected in his views on contemporary politics in 且lsown t1 me, m p盯ticular his ambivalent attitude towards li检ral democracy. His 出 eory oflegitimate domination tries to steer clear of conventional views; with a sortofice偷….cold reasoning he tends to describe legitima艺e domination primarily in terms of acceptance of effective leadership, rather than in any kind of valueoriented terms - a position whïch is certainly at variance with conventional notions of democraC}几 Tne second part, 'Max Weber on Socialism and Po1itical Radicalism', is devoted to Max Weber's attitude towards socia1ism and radical呻democratic thought. 丁he essay ‘ Capitalism and Socialism: Weber's dialogue with Marx' is concerned with the relationship between Weber and Marx on a theoretical level; while Weber objec时 stro吨ly to Marx's po1itical views, none the less there seem to be substantial parallels between himself and Marx in the analysis of the capitalist system‘ However, Web盯 considered Marx's account ofhow the a1ienation of the workers under capitalism might eventually be overcome to be not only wrong but positively dangerous for the survival of a 1iberal social order. Weber's vìews on the Social Democrats in Wilhelmine Germany, which are discussed in the essay Joining the Underdogs?' , 在窍， however, remarkably ambivalent. While in principle he took sides with the Social Democrats against 出eir bourgeois adversaries , whose fear of the so-called ‘ Red Peril' he regarded as rather ridiculous, if not abhorrent, he blamed them for their mere verbal radicalism, accompanied by timidity and petty-bourgeois attitudes. He had considerable respect for radical politics, provided that its proponents were pr守在red to accept th

Pr价ce

1x

demonstrates perhaps best his person在 vlews 边out the insoluble tension between an ethically oriented lifιconduct 在nd instrumental他rational social acnon. The third part，寸he Developmem of Max Weber's Theoretical Ideas', deals with key aspec衍。fMax Weber's sociological thought. In his sociological theo町 the political perspectives we encountered in Weber's political thought are turned into theoretical guidelines according to which he chose to analyse the fabric of society. 丁his is particularly the case with Weber's theory of bureaucranzation, the theme of 也εfirst essay in this part. Weber saw in bureaucracy both a potential danger to individual li七erty and an effective instrument in the hands of grε主t personal leaders who are thereby ena七led to give new impulses to an existing soci注 system. This essentially aminomical conception of the social functions of 七 ureaucracy provides a key for understanding Weber's political' and social thought alike. It certainly had a significant inf1 uence on his theories of1 egitimate domination and charismatic leadership. Similarly Weber's notion of rationality bears testimony to the antinomical structure of his reasoning. He was not j 飞1St the prophet who heralded the modern age of modernity and instrumental rationalization; instead we observe a gradual change in his usage of the notion of rationalitγ， which eventually comes to encompass comple始ly differem types of rational social conduct 睛也ose oriemed 与 instrumental-rational considerations, and those oriented 七y substantìve values ofvery different sorts. Al ongside this goes a tendency towards a more 也rmalized use of the idωl-typical method, as is demonstrated in detail in the essay on ‘Ideal 丁ype and Pure 丁ype: two variants of Max Weber's ideal呻typical method'. In the later years ofhis life Max Weber (U med his back on those varieties of social reasoning wlω1 were mere与 concerned with formal ratìonali可 and instrumental-ratìonal social action. Pursuíng the idea of 'disenchantment' through the progressive formal rationalization of 在11 spheres of social interac泣。几 he came close to redíscovering myth (although noVl{ within a thoroughly institutionalized world) as a source of ìndividual lifestyles at variance with evèryday life. He pointed to the eternal struggle between totally irreconcilable world• TÍews that was now re-emergìng in modern bureaucratic society, if on

x

托拉ce

largely indebted to liberal individualism, and i泣 some respects to Nietzschean ideas too; acωrdin革 to Weber , the individual , if oriented towards strin在ent '0 therworldl)户 ideas， may give new impulses to 出 course ofhistorical events - a notion eventual1y conceptualized in the 出eoηof charismatic au thority 由 but he reconciled this radic址ly indìvidualistic conception with a sociological 出eory of social change which emphasizes the independent role of social and economic forces which operate accordingω 出eir own inherent laws (Eigengesetzlichkeiten ), a position 汉宜。ngly reminiscent of Karl M在rx and the Anglo-Saxon empiricist tradition. τ如 final part，寸he Rediscovery of Max Weber', tells the variegated sto叮 of howMaxWeb的 ide在s were gradually taken up 均 social 主nd political thinkers in the West. Strangely enou掉， in the inter-war period his work was largely neglected , if not forgotten , perhaps with the exception of his famous thesis on The Protestant Ethic and the Spi宿吃fCapitalism. During the 1930S his intellectual heritage found a tempor在巧， home in the United States, while in Germany under Hitler his sociology was r飞jected as 在 typical expression of ìate-bourgeois li怡ralism which National Socialism allegedly was about to overcome for good. It was only after the Second World War that Max Weber's work was rediscqvered again，在lthough sometimes(at a町 rate in the early years) 岛t 出e wrong reasons. The astounding renaissance ofhis thought whìch we experience tod句 throughout the whole world , including the countries of the communist bloc, tells us perhaps more about ourselves t扭扭均out Ma..x Weber. His social 也eo叩 isem七edded in a notion of universal 主istory which is informed above all by one key question - namely, how the individualistic life峭conduct of the personality, inherited from the age ofliberalis m, may be preserved in our own highly bureaucratized and thoroughly rationalized Western culture. This is certainly an Ìssue which is still very much with us, however widely our answers may differ from Max Weber's own. 1 wish to express my sincere thanks to Anthony Giddens for his encouragement and unswervin在 support without which this 七ook would not have come about. 1 am also greatly indebted to Gary T. Mille玄， who undertook the arduous task of translating the essays on 'PoHtics and Scholarship' and ‘R在tionalizatÏon and Myth in Weber's Thought' from the German original, as well as editing the text throughout. Wolfgang J. Mommsen Düsseldor f, March 19 部

Acknowledgements

Chapter 1 was originally presented as part of a series oflectures on Max Weber at the Istituto-Germano-Ita1ico at Trent, and in a revised version at the Conference of the Deutsche Soziologische Geselleschaft at Kassel in 1986. This translation is by Ga巧 T.Miller. Chapte门 was fìrst p吟lished in Historische Zeitschrijt , 233 (198 斗'Pp.35 -64， 飞机也 the title 'Die antinomische Struktur des politischen Denkens Max Webers飞It is repub 1ished here in the English versÎon, translated by José Ca始时 nova, which originally appe在red in Scott G. McNa l1 (ed.), Current Per.宇 ectives in Social Theory: A 1之必earch Annual , vol. 4 (GreenwicλConn.， and London, 1983), PP.253- 88 . Chapter 3 was fìrst presented as part of a series of broadca汉s for the Open University in 1985. Chapter 4 was frrst published as 'M在x Weber als Kritiker des Marxismus' in ZeitschrijtfürSoziologie , 3 (1974), pp. 256-饵，蒜nd was then inc1uded under 出e 位le ‘Kapita1ismus und Sozialismus: die Auseinandersetzung mit Karl Marx', in Wolfga吨 J. Momms钮， Max Weber: Gesellschajt, Politik und Geschichte (Fra球fur飞 1974)， pp. 144-8 1. It is here published wi也 m苦。主囚odifìcations using the English version translated by David 技err with 出e co-operation of Gerd Schroeter and Robert An tonio, which appeared in 民。如rt J. Antonio and Ronald 悦 Glassman (e钩， A ~的ber-Marx Dialogue (Kansas Uni附SI可 Press， 1985), pp. 234-61. An earlier En在lish version was published under the title ‘Max Weber as a Critic of Marxism' in Ca nadian journal 吃fSociology , 2 (1977), pp. 373~98. Chapter 5 was 如st presented 孟s part of a series of lectures at Cambridge U出versity in June 1985Chapter 6 was fìrst pu悼边.ed in Wol屯在ng J. Mommsen and Jü吨en Oster-

xü

A~ 如妇 削 n1

}弘 1浪a剖础础 m n即 刀rr m nel乓{εeds)， Ma; 口 即笃 Webε衍ra仰 m证 1狞 d dl胎 山 li. is Con仰化抒咋宇O例 rarí臼 {在 Lo 佣 nd 岛 on 民， 19 叭8的7 升叫)， pp. 121 叩38.It

was translated 七y Erica Carter and Chris Turner. A German version appeared in Wolfgang J. Mommsen and Wolfga吨 Schwentker (eds), Max Weber und sei时 Zeítgen俗剧 (Göttingen， 1988). Chapter 7 was first presented as part of a series of lectures at Cam七ridge Universi可 in June 1985. Chapter 8 was first pu七lished under the title ‘ Idealtypus und reiner 丁ypus: Zwei Varianten der idealtypischen Methode Max Webers' , in Wol每吨 Küttler (ed.), Marxístische Tj伊拉rung und idealtypische Methode in der Geschichtswisse阳d拚 Studien zur Geschichte , vo1. γ， Ak ademie der Wi削lschaften der DDR. Ze ntralinstitut für Geschichte (Berlin, 1986). Chapter 9 was first published undet the title ‘Ra tionalisierung und Mythos bei Max Weber' , in Ka rl HeinzBohrer (ed.), MythosundModerne: B号rifFund Bild eíner 1之ekonstru缸ion (Fra出furt， 1983), Pp.382吨。4. This translation is by Gary T. Miller. Chapter 10 is in large part based on a presentation at the Congr!主s Inter忡 national des Sciences Historiques in Stutt萨rt in 1985. A German version was pubHshed in Jürgen Kocka (ed.), Max Webe巧 der Historiker (Göttingen, 1986), pp. 51 阳'72. However, it has 七een thoroughly revised and extended. Earlier versions of essay 11 were presented at the Institut d'Histoire Contemporaine, Paris, in May 1985 and at Princeton University in April 1986.

Bibliographical Note and Abbreviations

References to quotations from Max Weber and to my Max Weber und díe deu位he Politik are given, wherever possible, in both the German version and the published English translation. However, as a rule, my own translations are used in the text. 乓β'SP

Arcl: 劝lÍ仿 vj 卢话命rSo. 倪 'zialw 归归 IIS.刷scl: 础 chaJ 拼jμω 仰 u4衍 md

EaS

Ma础 x Weber,

Economy and Society: An

Outline 吃f Interpretive

Soâol，吻， ed. Günther Roth and Claus Wittich (Berkel町，

Los Angeles and London, 1977) 五ldridge

Max Weber: The Interpretation 电f Social 反eali亨， ed. J. E. T.

GARS

Eldridge (London, 1971) Max Weber, Gesammelte Att弄ätze zur Rel告ionssoziol，哩 ie ， vol. 1 (丁übingen， 1920), vol. 2 (Tübi鸣饵， 1921), vo l. 3

GASS

(丁übingen， 1921) Max Weber, Gesa n:附lte Au向阳 zur Soziol，号 ie

GPS

politik , ed. Marianne Weber (τübingen， 1924) Max Webe宜， Gesammelte Politische Sc占4仰， 3rd edn

und Sozial-

(Tübi吨en， 1971) κZSS

Lebensbíld

Kölner Zeitschrift {ür Soziol，哩ie und Sozialpsychologie Marianne Weber, Max Weber: Ein Lebensbild (Tübingen, I 如6)

MWG

Max

Webeμ Gesamtau气ga纭， ed. 罚。rst Baier, M. Rainer

Leps邸， Wol电ang J. 她 M4岛 圳 O mm 脂sen 吼 认， Wolf毡毕艺 a gan 吨 gρSch 趾灿灿过由山 l且川 u1川ch眩 叫 and 扣 j oha lann 邵 口ne 部s Win 旧 ck ，扣划 伽 .elr i扭ma 阳 undl反之ed， 命en κ f仁:

vol. 112: Die rämische Agrargeschichte in ihrer Bedeutungfür das Staats- und Privatrecht , ed. Jürgen Deininger (Tübingen, 19 86)

List l?fAbbreviations

XIV

voL 1/3 (in two parts): Die Lage der Landarbeiter im ostelbischen Deωu 创t阳 M础 sωκd chl 臼 i

叫 V 01. 讪 1 110α:

Zur

Rt仰 ω ~s. ssi衍 Sχd协 1沱ε♂ e附础n吉

Revolutíon von 1905: Schriften und

Reden 1905-1909 , ed. Wolfgang J. Mommsen in col四 la七orarion with Dittmar Dahlmann (Tübingen, 1989) (forthcoming) 叫 III

s: Zur Politik im Weltkri，号: Schr.拼'en und Reden 1914时

1918 , ed. W olfgang J. Mommsen i在 collaborarion wi白 Gangolf 在检inger (Tübingen, 1984)

MommsenγMax

跻乍ber Mom白棋泣， Max

1-4'eber , English

vol. Ih6: Zur 炖uordnung Deutschlands: Schriften und Reden 1918-1920 , ed. Wolfgang J. Mommsen in collaborarion with Wolfgang Schwentker (丁能ingen， 1988) Wolfgang J. Mommsen, Max Weber Utωíe deuts，伽 PoUti走 1 890-1920 ， 2时 edn (丁ühingen， 1974) Wol每ang J. Mommsen, Max ~仇ber

and German Politics 1890 1920. trans. M. Steinberg (Chicago, 198 s) >

edn

NPL RS

WL WuG

Neue PoUtisclte Literatur Max Weber, 1之echtssoziol咽i马 aus dem Manuskript herau.铲跚 geben und ei咆eleitet von Johannes Winckelmann， 二nd edn (N创wied， 叩 1 96甘 7) d Ma础 xWeb 如如快阳 e倪E巳 矶， Ge.仰?附 l'时'eAψd阳 zurWi仪必搅enschak 价 ω 凶 d 也创 sl lehr，屹 3抖 edn (σTü凸ib 阮11吨 1唱 ge 岱 n， I96 8 ) Max Weber, Wí邸haft und Gesellschaft: Grundri.五s der ve严

stehenden Soziologie , sth edn, ed. Johannes Winckelmann (T出ingen， 1978)

PARTI

Politics and Social Theo巧

I

Politics and Scholarship: The Two Icons in M在x Weber's Life

Max Weber was a deeply committed political personality throughout his life. From his early year当 right up to 1920 he was passionately involved in the politics ofhis day and he always reacted extremely forcefully to political events, even if thís frequen tIy never penetrated beyond his circle of closer 在cquaintances. Karl jaspers found in hindsight that 毛1s thought represented the r臼1ity of someone who was political to the core, a will to act ín the 挺立飞rÌce of the. historical 口loment."

丁heview h邵阳n put forward repeatedly，七y Reínhard Bendix and Günther

Roth, for example，出.at Max Weber's scholarship could be clearly separated 台om his po1irics.且 Here the opposite 飞new 认rill be advanced 阳 thatcontemporary polirics exerted a great influence on Max Weber's academic work without 也ereby detracring from its scienrifìc character. Even where he w龄 not dealing expressly wi由 polirical matters 出e po1irical dimension of his analysis can be traced just beneath 也e 豁出.ce. 1t can be shown, for example, ín his work on 在e Protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism' that this is concemed with an ethos specifìc to the bourgeoísie as an autonomous social class which has nothing in common with the feudalist fundamental ideals of tradirional aristocracy. Hence the 七ourgeOlsle must not accommodate ítself to the insidíous process of feuda1izàrion that could be 0七served in Imperial Germany. With such deep-rooted polirical concems it is little wonder that Max Weber repeatedly found himself confronted 与 the quesrion of whether or not he should move over into prac位cal polirics. As early as 1894 the opportuníty arose to take on a candidature in M在nnheim for the Reichstag (the Imperial Diet). His rapid academic promorion 出en reduced his inc1 inarion to change over into acrive po1irics. Furthermore, in 1899 illness rendered serious work in any fìeld impossible for some years, and especially so in acrive polirics. However, from

gM唱

，ι

duw

了

n , na a'''''

AM

Aυ

户、ν

4

协 f'

AV

步，秽

F ,,,,.

owd

dvb

1906-7 onwards Max Weber ~cted as political adviser to the Freisinnige V盯dnisungtibml union)(wHch iaterkcamtl1e Fomc;mtliche Voiksm partti (Progressive Popular party))through tk iatezcession ofFriedrick Nau;nann (wh;se role in party politics has recent~y been clearly delineat_ed for the 6rst time bv Peter TIleiaer斗 and Ernst Mu拮 lell 丑le←山且 M艇制 4仕甜 el 创灿 i灯nin the maior decisions of the 五iberals， partic由向 duri吨 the period of the socalled 主ülow bloc 仕om 1906 to 吟吟吟ich consisted of a 拟出what unnatural coalition of 也e Liberal and Conservative parties, w部 undoubtedly restricted in scope but should not be underestimated. Weber's insistence on 出e adoption of a g;nuim paEliammEγsys在em and the curtail附挝 of the so-calIed ‘ personal re 2:ime' ofWilhelm 11 did no t 血deed have any direct effect in the years leading UD to the Fi rst World War , but on the 咄 0出 tlhe世主 ha 叩 ar时 ld 让 i the 忧elped 句 gradu 叫 d 阳 a址11伊 严 yr吁to bri 民i吨 ……nd 艺由}且le P吨邸SlV罚e Liberals to a firm political stan风 especially on constitutional issues:~ Mter the outbreak of the first World War Max Weber did his utrnost to fìnd some opening for himself in politics so 出at he could at least perform some sort of service to ilie nation once armed service had been denied to him on health I!l"ounds. However, no suitable role could be found for him and especia1ly not under 也e conditions of the ‘ domestic truce' which aimed to curb if not to suspmzd completely aii intemai pddcaiho$dides;undd 血。se circumstances a m矶 with his-volat:Üe temper and his habit of spe这ing the plain truth was really not in demand. The oppor划nity to take up a post in Brussels as specialist adviser on the staff of Governor-General von Bissing, who was in chargεofthe German rnilitarv adrninistration of Belgium duri鸣曲 First 宙orld War, 均ich suddenly'presented it~elf in 1915 prov甜llusory in 吐也啦 1怒e 创时 1址 d. It ω ∞出邮 i由 吨 n gbe臼C革泯剧刷 山 u IS罚e the imperia1 goverm挝旧 did notshow 出点ghtesti附rest i气 having an independent ‘ brain trust' in Brussels working for the annexatio号 of Bellri~m and therefore stifled von Bissi吨's plans right at the outset 明 for­ mJLteiy enough, one mighz add in 主etrospec飞 for 出is saved Weber from a potenti均 da~aging collaboration with 由 ofldalwr m句olicy. From ~916 o;wa~ds Weber played a leading role in Friedrid王 Naumann's Arbeitsausschuss für Mitteleuropa (Working Par可 on Central Europe), a comrnittee founded early in 1伊 6 to promote .the idea of a central European economic union. Weber joined the comrnittee in the belief that it would be 在le to produce some solid groundwo

Politícs and Scholarship

5

be. Certainly the government of Bethmann Hol1weg pursued a po1icy of annexationism; but it preferred indirect means of extending imperial Germany's hegemonic status to large呻scale annexations. However, it dared not fight openly for 也is somewhat more moderate line; not only did it not support the Ar beitsausschuss für Mitteleuropa, but it looked upon it as an inconvenience by whose activities the government might be discredited , bec在use it was afraid of being blamed as weak - and this despite 由e fact that decisions in 主his arωhad always fallen under 也e de focto if 1以 the de jure competence of the joint chie位。f staff under Hindenburg and Ludendorff. In the end and in utter frustration Max Weber deliberately sought refuge in academic work far removed from 也.e busde of politics by devoting himself to his studies on E王induism and Buddhism. In Oct。如 1918， with the unexpected appointment of Prince Max von Baden as imperial chancellor，在e initially vague prospect now presented itself of his attaining some public function in politics after al1. Matthias Erzberger, who had 社come a key figure in the new government and who was soon to become chief negotiator in the armistice negotia∞ns， tried to win Max Weber ove主 in early November 1918ωjoin a group to launch a publicity campaign in support of Prince Max von Bad钮's government, and indeed, it appears , Max Weber was inclined to take u p 也e offer. The I飞evolution 也en swept away the last imperial government under Prince M栋 and accordingly nothing was to come of this oppor阳出ty. The Revolution，主owever，。岳red Max Weber surprising new chances for an active role in politics. In the second week in November the Council ofPeople's Delegates (Rat der Volksbeau缸agten) consid世ed appointing Max Weber Secretary of State for the Interior and commissioning him to draft 出e fìrst version of a parliamentary constitution fo室出.e whole Reich. Eventually, 忌。，wever， Hugo Preuss, one of the few liberal constitutional lawyers in Germany, was appointed Seαetary ofSt在te instead, and for his part he initially intended to encrust Max Weber with responsibi江ty for constitutional questions even if only as D守uty Secret在ry of State. Just as 1itde came of this in the end as of 也e proposal by Conrad Haussmann and Ludo Moritz 挂在rtmann that Max Weber should be appointed envoy of the German republic in Vienna, which would have been a politically signi主cantapp。由tment in 飞riew of the fact 出at 也e 时ue of an Austrian Ansch

ρ··.

Z臼叫

-td

，，， ι

a, FO

d HH

了

4E·erab

内ν

AV

fι

·--P ,,,,.

俨、 d

6

o wa

acrive in the Deutsche Den∞krarische Partei (German Democratic Pa时). He was elected to the party executive. More important, he took on extensive electoral work for 出e DDP in the campaign for the elections to the National Assembly which began in early December 1918. The degree of Max Weber's commitment to the DDP during those weeks was considera七le and has not been given suffìcient attention up to now in the literature on the su专ject. 6 But 1在tein November Weber's candidàture in the Reichstag constituency of Hessen/ Nass在u failed among other reasons because the way in which he had spoken out too openly in the initial stages of the electoral campaign in favour of co棚 operation with the Social Democrats and for a partial nationalization of the economy made him appear suspect to many of the delegates. Compared to this, Weber's political involvement in the Heidelberg时 Vereinigung für Politik des Rechts (Heidelberg Association for Legal Policy) was much more detached. The Heidelberg Association planned to launch a public campaign in defcnce of Germany, primarily directed abroad, against the almost universal condemn在tion of Germany for her conduct in the war in the Al lied as well 豁出e neutral countries. It aimed at improving the moral position of the Reich government at the impending peace negotiations. The Heidelberg Associ础。no专jected especially to the 'war guilt' accusarion, to Al lied propaganda 在hout German atrocities during the war and to misuse of the League of Nations for the purposes of 在 policy of sul才ecring Germany to a harsh peace settlement. ln 也is respect it was indeed an advantage that M揣冒出er could speak out on these issues 仕om the independent standpoint of a scholar of intern在 tional standi吨. Partly at Prince Max's suggestion Max Weber was eventually mVl拟1 by 出e GermanFo把ign Minister GrafBrockdorff-Ran泣au 邸 take p在主τ in the Versailles peace negori在柱。ns as an expert adviser. The purpose behind this move, however, was to use Max Weber's great prestige to promote Brockdorff-Rantzau's policy on the quesrion of war guilt rather than to al10w him or the other specia1ist advisers a genuinely independent influence over the handling either of the war guilt problem or, more especially, of the issue which parricularly preoccupied Max Weber: whe也er Germany should sign the Peace Treaty at all or rather, as he thought 齿，比ject it, even 就 the risk of the possible occuparion of parts of the Reich 问r Al lied troops. lnde

Politics and Scholarshi学

7

drawal from politics which he undertook at 出at time, and which he rounded off afterwards 七y resigning from his executive seat in the DDP and even giving up his membership , would rea l1y ever have been fìna l. There is much to suggest 艺he opposite view, in line with his dedaration on the occasion of disturbances at Munich Universi可 ov位 the possible reprieve of Count Arco (who in May 1919 had received a death sentence for the assassination ofKurt Eisner), towards the end ofwhich 坠e said: 'The reason why 1 am no longer in politics, as you know, is bec在use it is impossible to have politics in Germany so long as it is possible for madmen of the right and left to peddle their madness.'7 In other words, even then he still considered bis wiihdrawal from po1i tics to be by no means permanent, but tempora巧 on1y. Undoubtedly Max Weber would have been 如ck in the politic在1 arena 妆品re long, had he been allowedωlivc: longer. He once said to Mina 丁。七ler tha主‘politics . . . had always been his secret love' and th挝 、hesεpeople . . . [i.e. the radìcals on 七oth the right and left] destroyed all that one held dear卢 MaxW捡破 never succeeded in completely renouncing 出IS ‘ secret love' , no matter how hard he tried at times to distance himself from everyday politics, not the least in order to ensure his spiritual survival. We must therefore condude that Max Weber stood on 出e threshold between politics and science all his lif己 He endeavoured to be of ser飞rice to bo也就 the same time, no matter how diffìcult this could be. Even if he re在lly never crossed the threshold into active political 挂fe， this was not just because of political circumstanccs at the time or because he was misunderstood by the ‘politicians without a vocation'9 but also because ofhis personal atticude to politics: he wanted to give a lead to politics, not to become tangled up in the tactical machinations of the everyday political struggle, although according to his own understanding this 岛rmed part of the politician's job. With the 0吨T real exception of the period 如tween 1898 and 1905 Max 唱reber always f与llowed up the po挂tical events of his day with journalism i往 powerfully wor'叶 d叫 a盯rti 缸创 cles 岱s in 出t:he F:仰盼附r Ze 昼i郎 t幻u拟 咯 H 应i吉萨♀ and 也eM，郎 初 :;t 阶 n1 Net 仰 uε 衍'Sten 创 Nach 巾htet彷1 ， m vanous pu七 lic statements and in works of an academic character but 飞Nith apolitical orientation. Many ofhis writings on political suι jects are derived from articles which were written in response to current politi

8

Politics and Social Theory

form, as he himself sa埠，‘its character as political polemic should not be suppressed, for that is what i艺 still is and 出at is what it should be.'10 Yet cruci在i elements of his sociology of domination are to be found in this text. Exactly the same w在s claimed 品r the article written at the end of 1918 on 'Germany's future form of government' ('Deutschlands künftige Staatsform') - namely, that wha艺 we are dealing with here is ‘ occasional writing of a political character without any claim to "scientifìc" validiry'.11 Finally, even his great speech 'Politics as 在 vocation'， which arose from a p在rticular historical situation and which is unmistakably directed against the paci自st tendencies of the time警 con由 tains fundamental statements 动。ut the nature of politics that are still valid to this day, even thou在电r.J eber himself only found the text ‘ very mediocre' when he revised it for publication. Contrary to customa可 opinion， Weber in no way thought it inappropriate for science to fìnd its inspiration in passionate involvement in political events and vice versa. What he could not tolerate was the uncritical admixture ofboth spheres, especially in the form of using the lecture to propagate political value明 judgements. 丁'wo condi艺ions were absolutely necessa巧:在rs飞 to declare or泣's own standpoint as openly as possible; and, second, to distinguish consistently between scientifìc analysis and political premises and deductions. Values and scienti在c deductions were to be examined for their validiry on a separa优 basis， 出e former on 在.e basis of personal preferences, the latter on the grounds of rational cri祀ria. Yet in no w町 did 汝岱reby want to support a purely positi飞ristically understood conception of sciènce as ‘value-free' or even in the radical sense as 'v址时才udgeme曰"台ee二 that is , far removed from politics or values. T坠e principl部 of this position are alrωdy clearly formulated in the Freiburg 检er sharplyr拮 命 e 怡 bl 咏 u1或 捡 k ed those 协 hi沁stor位 i立ca 址i inaugural address of 1895. Al ready he主跄e 飞Web pos公iti ∞ ons wl挝协垃凯 rich

C ons ∞ 附艺tit惚 山t时 b u 忡 7 由 O与e 倪ct巾 i如 ve proce仍ss of 兑1u 山 挝汕 i沁s沉tor 阳巧 y its 岱附时忧 sel五 Instead he forcefully emphasi和d thaτin politic在1 economy there are no scientific standards of value

of an objective 阳ure which are consequent on its su专jectmatter 一 for instance. such possible standards 豁出e goal of achieving maximum productiviry or 出e principle of social justice or the idea that there should be a permanent socia

Po /i tics and Scholarshíp

9

never shied away from openly declaring to his audience his own valuepreferences. One only has to think of his severe critique of the ‘ passion for bureaucratization', which led him to despair, his bitter polemic against the 于民 udo-…cons tÎ tutionalism' of Imperial Germany and the ‘ personal regime' of Wilhelm Il in the debates of the Verein für Sozialpolitik (Social Policy Associatio时 t 3

Certainly Weber later defined his position on this point more precisely in the sense of logically di他rentiating between ‘ value-judgement' and ‘value叩 rel在tion\In scientific analy山 value宁电ements have to give way to valuerelated judgements, which elevate certain values to 出e point of re岳rence for analyses in political and social science, withOllt asserting anything abollt theiï validity as such. Values as such, according to 飞"f，feber, are not capable of scientifÌ c validation; 七ut on the other hand thcre is also in principle no poSS在ility of restricting the theoretic在lly endless spectrum of value-positions or eliminating certain ext主eme value相orientatÎons in favour of a realis tÎc orientatÎ on by scìenrific means , such as in the way Jürgen Kocka spoke of a range of empirically acceptable theorerical positions. The decision to consider certain values as personally binding on oneself and to arrange OI妃's life叩conduct strict1y accordingly belongs to the autonomous s庐盯e of p时sonality， accordi..'1g to Weber. 丁hus political value-decisions are in principle inaccessible to scienrific verification or disproof no matter how understood. On the other hand science is indeed quite capable of eluçidating the possible or probable cons吨uences of ce扫毒in decisions 如 concrete situarions in the light of the re唔ective ideal values governing an individual's actions or even of competing ideal values and so of rarionalizing value-decisions to the extent that the achievement of the highest ideal values of the individual is given optimal chances. In the so瑞called ‘valueτjudgement controversy' conducted in the Verein 也r Sozialpolitik from 1908 onwards W出er never succ优ded in gaining accept在nce of his views. Originally he had taken 0拟 this fight above all 飞Nith a 飞riew to countering the prevaili吨 influence of 出.e 'old-conservative' tendency as repre… sented by Gustav von Schmoller, the Grand Old Man of the German historicìs主 school of nationa.l. econornics a丘er a 丘ontal assault had failed to r，εpel it. Schmoller in Weber's vie

SHM? ρL

nu忡

,

AU

守

丁

SAUCAM , ,,,& eeza etaz'b PA -za TJ AU HH Opawt

Aν

10

Weber was concerned on the contrary to bring bo也 spheres into relation with each other in such a way that on 也e one hand their transparεncy was consisten t1y maintained and on the other the ground w在s taken from under the 会et of all lectern demagoguery once and for al1. This should not me在n， however, that the political viewpoints which form the impulse of scientifìc research and flow into the formulation of the questions which guide scientifìc reseaτch should not be decl缸ed openly. This meaning can be discerned throughout Max W伦er's 飞λrork. Essεntial elements of his sociology of domination and 岱pecially his theory of democr就ic rulεare owed direc t1y or indirec tIy to insights he had gained in 出e contemporary political stru时倍。f his day. And the sociology of domination in its turn is oriented 在round 出e central issue of how freedom, however understood , may be possible under different social conditions, and in particular in the condïtions of highly bureaucratized capitalist societies. Max Weber was extremely irritated by the political arrangements in Imperial Germany. He diagnosed 豁出e chief characteristic of the existing political system that it had left 击e politicalleadership t，。在 civil service 也在twas well-m岱ning but incapable of political leadership and f二←sighted political judgement. From the point of view of consti部tional policy, in Weber's opinion it was a case of a pseudo-constitutional system that posscssed all the di advantages but none of the advantages of parliamentary forms of government. 14 Imperial Germany was led by good civil servants, even olltstandingly good civil servants, but it lacked po1iticians - not just great politicians but politicians in the ordinary sense of the word. Accordingly he ascri忧d structural leader1ess明 ness 抬出e political system.τhis condition was additional1y made worse by the ‘ personal regime' of 职 Wil如 挝讪 he 1泛elm 对吟衍 m 孜1 11, 也that 也汪 山 i总S 岱t 』祉e 让1 玄芷r岱 essp 严 O往挝 nSl 况ib 桂怆 le 伊 gov! 呢 仅Eτ.τ'nm C 时e盯n汉t垃ionism of 也 V the mona 盯rch 仨1 in all 百1 poli让tica 址1 dec 岱 i岱SI抬 ∞孜扣咄ma O 球支i扫 吨 η g， especially foreign policy. ln Weber's view this was rooted in social conditions and in the mental disposition of the leading classes of the nation. The existing bureaucratic regime was above all concerned to preserve the traditional polìtical and social pr eminence of the big landowning aristocracy, although this dass had lapsed in 也e meantime int

•

•

Politics and Scholarship

II

was , as Weber perceived 泣， partlya result ofBismarck's imperious rule 吨lC坠 h在d represented the exact ‘ opposite of the political education of the nation\15 Web叫 udged the working dass sc在rcely less 如ou地ly. It was pushing to get into powe室， without 主aving any concrete ideas ofhow it could achieve this , not to mention to w主挝 use it should 怡 put. Weber charged the German Social Democrats wit且在双 apolitical attitude, lack of a sense of power and a pettγ……· bourgeois mentalitγ. Instead of pursuing a sensible policy of reform inωm operation with the progressive elements of the bourgeoisie, it confined itself to a ‘ revolutionizing of minds\ Its appearance in the political arena had 由e effect of a ‘ shot in the arm for the existing order'. Max Weber used the British example here as a counterfactual model , although idealizing it in many respec也 InBrit在in there was a parliamentary monarchy w乞ich assigned to the monarc且 在 great deg附 of de focto political influe缸C 在ltho吨h constitu∞时ly the monarc且 was confined to representative functions. In Britain it was a matter of a 'kingdom ofinfluence二 not， as in the case of the Wilhelmine empire, of ‘ mere pretence飞 InBritain there w在s a powerful parliament which, precisely because it was not just relegated to purely negative polìtics, had always brought forward great political leaders. And these politicians had known how to pursue a thoroughly successful imperial policy and to achieve the mostly volunta巧 subordination of the colonial peoples to British domination. Moreov缸， the world power status ofBritain had had positive effects on the attitude ofBritish labour: unlike their German counterparts 在eB主iti边 wo室主ers poss臼sed a welldeveloped sen忧也主 issues involving political power第 Quite 在part from that，也ey pu主sued 主配在listic strategy as re军在rds the promotion of their concrete class interests, instead of adhering to a stratεgy of mere verbal radicalism. This highly critical diagnosis of the structural defects of the German political system, developed with British conditions in mind, became intensified during the First World War. In Weber's opinion not on1y was the outbreak of the war under circumstances that were extremely unfavour动le to Imperial Germany a consequence of these failings , but f口rthermore they increasingly reduced Germ主ny's chances of survi飞ring the war ièlatively unscathed. The superio技巧 of the parliamentary systems of the West over 也e German ‘ seml-

12

Politics and Social Theory

the interests of increasing the power status of the nation., but that policy had to be carried out with a sense of reality and proportion. 丁his was precisely w坠挝 appeared to 七e less and less assured. The decision in favour of unrestricted su乞marine warfare in the summer of 1916 he considered to be the fìrst extreme of absolute arrogance, which was then to be followed with a secónd in the conclusion of the imposed peace of Brest-Litovsk. In view of these hopeless conditions, which he 在ttributed to the 1在ck of a genuinely responsible political leadership, he could see only one effective solu位on: the parliamentarization of Imperial Germany. A policy of effective domestic r~forms， associa艺ed with the introduction of a genuinely parliamenta均可stem of government, was 动。ve all to achieve the following: 1 S佼佼19thening the political cons~nsus of the na~o_~ and its readiness if necessary t~ do its utmost to survive the war successfully, 2 secunn只 an etIective politicalleadership, which, precisely because it would be based on democratically formed rr吨jorities. would be in a position to pursue a realistic , well-judged policy, with the goal of safeguarding the. ?ower positionofImpdai G出many in the world ìn the 10吨怯rm， well hevonl the foreseeable end of the w矶 3 connected 飞的th this , putti吨 an end to the irresponsible 唱itation for extreme and increasingly utopian war aims; 4 the effective elimination of the persistent interventionism of the military hierarchy in political decisions. Against this current political background Max 百'eber gradually developed his 击eory of democratic rule of the parliamentary 句pe. Essentially here he

started from the classical model of representative democracy as it had developed in western Europe, namely a parliamentary system on the basis of the 、 1ib盯al-model of índividual self-determin在tion protected from state despotism 问 basic rights in the context of a constitutional order. However, Weber saw hlmself compelled under the in fI uence of contemporary events to place special emphasis on the need for politicalleadership. In accordance with contemporary ide~s， he thus described the productionof gr它在t political leaders as the most ímportant function of parliamentary democracy and in a way the most impor阳门。盯ce of its legitimacy. Weber's model of derr肌ratic rule , in view of its conscious emphasis on the dominant role of political leaders within the parliamentary process of policy f

Polítiιs. and Scholarsh争

13

The political cìrcumstances in Wilhelmine Germany induced Max Weber to develop his theoIγof democratic rule not from the premises of individual selfdetermination and popular sovereignty - although indeed hints of this can be found in his work - but rather from the superior perfo主mance of parliamentary democracies. In concrete situations, however , this meant 纪lying particularly on their ability to produce a truly effective leadership. Weber in principle adhered to the basic precepts of a liberal conception of democratic rule: personal liberties, the idea of representation and the requirement that all democratically responsible action necessitates t挝e polirical consensus of actively involved cirizens. But increasingly he emphasized by contrast the opposite principle: that great politicians must crεate their political following on the strength of their personal charismaric qualifìcarions; in other words, that the formarion of polirical opinion f10ws essentially 丘。m the top downwards and not from the base upwards to the elected leader, whether 七y the principle of delegation or by the con岳重ring of a polirical mandate. Deeply convinced of the need for great po1irical leadership under the contemporarypolitical circumstances in Germany, which were thre在tening to endanger the very existence of the Reich, Max Weber had no reservations about pushing the idea of the po1iticalleader's personal responsibi1ity to its utmost conceptual limits, although thereby he brought himself into diametrical opposìrion with the classical precepts of 1iberal democtacy户 ln this context at least the legal and consritutional po1irical norms of democraric rule are treated merely as formal precondirions for the rise of great leader fìgures who have gained their positions of power exclusively 0祭 出e strength of their personal charisma 响也就 is， on the s佼ength of the be1ief of the masses in their capacity f与r leadership. At the same rime 由e gradual unfolding of this posirion, which was to receive i ts most radical expression in the 出eo可 of 子lebiscitarian leader democracy二 must be seen against the background ofWeber's universal占istorical theory of Western rarionalizarion as an essenrially irreversible process of increasing formal rarionalizarion of every aspect oflif七 and of the progressive 各ureaucrat­ ization of all institurional forms. From this point of view, ple七iscitarian lead盯 democracy appearecl to b

14

Polítics and Socíal Theory

all other institutional forms of domination in society. From the point of view of the effìciency, sta七ili ty and relia己ility of its app主ratus of rule, this 可pe of 七ureaucratic domination was f红 superior to all other known forms of domination in 仨istory. 丁here seemed to be no rurning back from 在is organizational form of domination at least in the historical situation in which Weber found himsel f. The triumph of bureaucratic forms of the exercise of domination seemed to be merely a question of time. Even in 也e USA, which for a long time had known only the ‘ spoils system' and a purely amateur administration, since the Americans looked upon a bureaucratic organization of state admini汉ration with the deepest suspicion, it was only a matter of time before administration by bureaucrats according to the European model would 岱tablish itsel f. In Web的 estimation， however, bureaucratic machines belonged to those social instirutions that were the most difl在cult of all to d部位oy. AlI the same, bureaucratization seemed to be on the advance across the globe , not only in state and local administrations but also in the economic sphere and in sociallife and not least in the fìeld of party organization. Relying on studies by James Bryce and Maurice Os役。gorski， and with reference to American and British ex在mples， especial1y Chamberl公正$ ‘ caucus' as fìrst practised in Bir扭扭gham， and the party machines of the major American cities, M a..x We ber predic优d 出e replacement of the 守严 of honori在c pa叫r (Honoratorienpartei) characteristic in particular of traditional 1iberalism by tighdy organized bur'εaucratic mass喃membership parties. Social democracywas the ffiost obvious example of this new type on his own doorstep. Unlike Roberto Michels, Weber did not consider the rise of mass 各ureaucratic parties and the associated oligarchization ofinternal party strUcruresωbe a disaster, or the b吃inning of the end of 在enuine party democracy and thus of democracy in general, but saw this development as inevitable under the circumstances of t且e advanced industrial state of t且，e capitalistic 可pe，l7 Indeed , he even saw positive aspects in this , for bureaucratic party machines could help to increase the s优ial dynamism of the capitalist syste m, which had taken a regressive trend aft时 the formation of monopolistic strucrures. 丁he party appararuses functioned so to speak as a reinforcement for the initiatives of the leadership and enabled the latter to impleme

铲，

.2 l ,&, t nM

-m品 '如忡

M

r鑫 勘也

andH,

Aν

F

C心 1

,

俨、

4 ，ι

内ν

DA l 't

C3

1S

sighted po 1icy capable of innovarion and [hUS of an indirect increase in social dynamism. This was of the greatest importance. In the course of the de呢lop­ ment of the institution在 l-bureaucratÌc state in large parts ofEurope, there arose an increasing lack of political leadership, especially in the pseudo-consritu四 tional system o fI mperial Germany which preserved the undiluted autocracy of a bure在ucratic pówer elite. In Weber's view the main thi吨 was to opposεthis trend , initially in the interests of national power po1itics, but in general also in 出e interests of the preser飞ration of the liberal order itselE Considerarions of this sort led Max Weber to highlight most emphatically the contrast 快tw优n politician and bureaucrat in his sociology of domination, not only f云。m the point of view of practical politics but also in purely theoretical terms. Bureaucrats must act strictly in accordance with instrucrions, Wl也in the bounds of rigidly defìned competences, without personal considerations but above all without revealing their personal convictions and ideals. That is why bureaucratic apparatuses are capable of achieving maximum effìcíency and, almost more importan t1 y, why they can serve a主主eliable and predictable instruments in the hands of whoever controls them. Precísely because their code of beh剖riour is prescribed and decisively influences their lif汪叫onduct， which is oriented to the dispassionate and impartial fulfìlment of the instructions given to them, bureaucrats are unsuÎted to politicalleadership. However, for the politicians at the head of these bureaucratic machines who are responsible for giving them 0专Jec的es and directio认 other laws apply. By contrast with bureaucrats, politicalleaders must possess exact1 y the opposite 气ualities， in particular the capadtyωpursue their own 。同jectives，可stematically and stubbornly, at whatever cost to themselves and with relentless personal engagement. Their duty is not to adapt to pre惆existing conditions but to fìght for something they personally 益。ld to be an important value. But leading politicians must create a following for themselves as wel1问 m达ing use of their demagogic skills. ln this, however, they must not simply appear as 出e representatives of the interests of their followers or electors, but rather the reve主se: they must supply them with their poHtical 0悖c巾es. Ultimately these 吨jectives will be derived 仕om their

16

Po /i tics and Social Theory

which then took on its general form in the theoretical requirement of charismatic leadership qualifications even for the democr就ic politician, Weber's theory of democratic domination necessarily came into conflict with generally accepted conceptions of democracy, which view the pòliticalleader primari1y as the representative if not just the mandatorγof the el机torate. Max weber indeed does not especially dispute this. For him it was self-evident that small groups of politicians always determine political action. However, he distanced himself from democratic elite theories of the sort propounded by Gaetano Mosca or Wilfrido Pareto essen出lly 也roug主 his individua1istic model of political 则ion. Weber's sodology of domination'does not involve leading elites or classes diri注eantes ， but alw:巧s some outstanding pe主sonalities who of course are in constant competition with one anoth挝 for the voters' favour 我nd who thereby have to assure themselves of the political consent of the citizens. The latters' political maturity functions as a negative condition for the securing of genuine charismatic leadership; and in this respect the democratic selection of leaders can be realized on1y in democratic political systems which put into practice the prindple of 也e 鸣uality of every cÌtÎzen in the state and of 吨ual rights of partidpation. From this point of 飞lÌew it fo l1ows that Max W，出er found it neces始巧 to restate the classical theory of democracy. In his view, the natural-law justification of democratic domination 叫 even if he did not expressly 时 ect it, but rather emphasized its significance in the creation of modern democratic 叩stems 叩 had lost all its concrete relevance for the present day. Democratization had , as he once said, if ‘ any precise meaning at all, then on1y that of the "minimalization" 。f the domination 与 "professional civil se押在nts" in favour of the most direct possible dominion of the people, which in pr在ctice means ofits respective pa古ty leaders\J 8 One can view this as an inappropriate 必ridgement of the concept of democratic rule. Yet Max Weber considered the prindple of fr优 leadershlp selection to be the essence of democratic rule under whatever circumstances. In so far as the unqualified adoption of this principle succeeded, cliat was ‘ notso insignificant' an achievement. For fundamentalist justifications of democracy, on the other ha时， he reserved only contempt. From this p

Po /i tics and S.εholarshíp

17

embellishing it with elements 击。m German political tradition. In comparison with other contempora巧 types of democratic rule, such as the American presidential system in particular, but also the SwÍss system of direct democracy and an extremely weak executive, the parliamentary system for him seemed to be the best suited to securing a maximum of political dynamism and optimal political leadership under conditions of incre础ing bureaucratization in all spheres of social interaction. Not least because of the unrestricted right of m弓uiry assigned to it 七y constitution过 law， parliament was sti11 best 必le to keep in check the bureaucratic governmental appar矶路， which had at its disposal an incrcasing amo剧。f 叫ertise in the exercise of power (H仰胁" wissen). In addition, par1 iament's primary function is to select politicalleaders. Yet it can fulfìl this only if it carries political responsibi1 ity and if it has unrestrlcted participation in the politica1 deçision-making processes 叩 in other words, in so far as it is a working par1iament and not just an arena 岛r ideological debate. Max Weber exemp1i6.ed this wi出 the case of the British par1iament, which again and again had brought forth outstanding political leadership fìgures of a high qua1i可. while the same could not be said of the German Reichstag precisely because it was condemned to pursue a merely negative form of par1iamenta巧 po1itics. As argued 七y Weber, parliament functions chieflyas a proving ground for po1iticians with a vocation for politicalleadership but at the same time as an organ of control whic主 brings a七out the retirement of statesmen and po1iticians &om positions of r岱ponsibility wheneve主 they have forfeited their leadership qualities. With the rise of plebiscitarian democracy, political initiative had transferred to the respective par可 leaders or s组tesmen who with the support of their following in par1iament directed their po1itical appeal primarily at the broad mass of the electorate in order to e1icit from it the necessa叮 consensus for their policies. Democratic leader棚rule 也us cannot do without a powerful parliament. Only in the antagonistic interplay between 出εtwo institutions of govemment and parliament can fìrs rate po1iticalleadership develop. ln spite of its de1iberately antinornically arranged strucrure，也Îs model of democratic rule does not evade 也e dang臼 of a functionalistic abridgement of par1iament's role in the democraric-constitutiona

•

18

Politics and Social Theory

very encouraging experiences with the DDP (Ge rman Democratic Party) party organìzation in Hessen/N在ssau， but was basically derived from his conception of politicalleadershìp which in tum originated in his philosophical view, here influenced by Nieαsche， that in practice only outstanding individuals have any chance of putting forw时 objectives for and giving new directions to society by virtue of their personal charisma. Max Weber's theory of democratic domination emph在sÌzes onesidedly the process of policy formation from the top downwards and the significance of the leading politician, while the great majority of citizens as such tend to recede into the background. This is at le在st in part a result of the climate in which Max Webe主 developed his sociology of domination. At the time the enemies of freedom almost uniformly seemed to be on the side of the bureaucratic machines. The precept of individual self.喃determination remained for Max Web自由e ideally suited measure of democratic systems; yet it had lost its direct relevance in 出e conditions of developed bureaucratic societies. Only with the help of charismatic skills and only by using special techniques for winni吨 over followers and for exercising domination by way of 七ureaucratic organizarlon did the ìndividual stil1 have any chance, in Weber's opinion, of really bringing his or her influence to bear in 出e political sphere. 丁'he apparent top-heaviness of the structure of politicalleader-吼Ile in parlìamenta巧 democracy as it appears here should certainly not be mistaken as authoritarian. For the taking to extremes of the principle of the po1iticalleader's personal responsibility is m就ched by the requirement that great po1itical leadership can only emerge within a genuinely democratic system and that it is bound 问r the necessity of continual self-legitimation wi也in the 仕ameworkof the democratic process of policy formation. Thus a democratic constitutional framework and, even more importantly, a democratically constituted society in which the precept of individu在1 selιdetermination is recognized as a basic structural principle at eve巧r level of 出e state order represent indispensable preconditions for the functioni吨 of ‘ charismatic leader democracy'. For Weber this goes without saying; 如cause of the aforementioned reasons arising 台om the contemporary political clìmate and conditioned by the historical situation, he stressed t

Politics and Scho缸 rshíp

19

not only a democratic constitution but also a politically self-conscious citizenship. On the other hand, the achievement of 且检r可 in whatever sense of the word - and 出us also the realizatìon of the principle of individual self二 determination in constitutional practice - can only be secured under conditions of charismatic political leadership, because this alone can prevent a gradual petrificatìon of modern bureaucratic societies in sheer 主outine and still preserve a sphere of liberty for the individual. A 纪conciliation of 出e principle of individual self-d佼佼mination and the principle of charismatic leader-rule is theoretica l1y unattainable; rather，由ey possess the quality of antinomiεs‘ Only in practicallife-conduct does the possibility arise of giving preference to one or the other in a particular context of action. Not the least becausc of this ìs the model of par1 iamentary democracy, as we find it in Weber's work, presented in a bipolar structure. According to whether the problems of democratic rule are formulatεd 告。m the point of view of individual self-determination and self-括在lization or 去。m the point of view of political leadership, díffering conclusions result. They are reconciled if at all only in the prescriptive ídea 出 at everything must be done in the conditions of the bureaucratic state so as to ensure a maximum of 1iberty 主nd opportunity f己r creative political actlon. The bipolarity of this model of democratic government is reflected in the field of political ethics. Max Web时， as is well known, distinguished two forms of polirical ethics, the ethics 吃f convictíon 革nd the ethícs of responsibilíty. Ethics based on conviction make the pu主suit of certain valuεs or ideals an i恕peratìve duty for an individual, no matter how great the chances 也r the achievement of these ideals in the current social situation may be and no matte主 what direct or indirect, intentional or unintentional, forms m在.y be adop时 by the þolitical acrion that is committed ωthese ultimate values. In the final analysis, for the actor it. is chiefly a matter of con直rming the validity of or 'preserving' those values he or she holds to be absolute; the actor feels duty叩bound to comply with them even in the most adverse circums岱nces and even if necessary by sacri在c­ ing his or he主 own life, as in the case of the syndicalist or the anarchist. Ethics de岳飞ring from a sense of responsibility, on the other ha时， requi

Politics and Social Theory

20

rational science. Furthermore, indeed, great political 拴在dership always contains an element of conviction ethics, by imposing certain objectives on its respective supporters 讪ich are to be absolutely binding. Weber thus in principle viewed both ethics as e可ual1y valid. Wolf毕艺驴伊 a缸.n吨 19μsd挝过由 u汇咄 ch阳 位 tτ垃 创ied 归 t ode 缸 e白mo t出 he 臼et副 hicωsofr挝 r创 ess甲 ponsl 岱峙$必i怡 bbi1丑1i均 t叩 ycor红re 仍s咱 呻 严 P ondst阳 oMa 揣 xWe 油 ber'spe 盯 ers 臼son 凶叫 l注 1冶 ali挂it可 yl挝 de 岱 eal 过1， whic主

•

requires a rational 1i6 conduct in keeping with ultimate values which constitute the stuff of personality in the 在rst place, and that it must therefore be seen as an essentially superior e出iC. 21 Without doubt the concept of responsibility ethics contains elements of a material ethic of values. Yet for fundamental reasons Weber 剖 not permit himself to follow such 在 èourse; for this would have resulted in a dilution of the respecòve ultimate valu decisions, wheth盯 on the basis of pragmatic or scientifìc criteria. But this is precisely what Weber considered neither practically desirable nor theoreticalIy feasible. Moreover, it is true of both variants of po1itical e出lC 出at 也可 maintain an insolubly tense relationship with 也.e precepts of all religiously founded ethics, for 出.e simple reason 也就 force and the exercise of force represent their specifìc mode of action. In his emphasìs on force as an autonomous i室主educible category of politics Max Weber follows in the tradition of Niccolò Machiavelli. According to Weber，‘legitimate 飞riolence气。r 出e exercise of domination 恃 mωIS of force 如y a re窑ime accepted or recognìzed as legitimate 衬 tho忧 who are ruled, also stands in an antinomical r e1ationship of insoluble tension to the principles of al1 religious ethics but especially to Christian ethics. Here as wel1 the mutually competing or even opposing positions involved are pushed to their respective conceptuallimits in a Nietzschean s巧rle of reasoning which tries to express the antinomies immanent in politics in the purest possible form instead of opting for a middle course and justi斗ing it p吨matical1y or m优al1y. The essential incompatibili咛 of politics and ethics as we fìnd it in Weber's sociology of domination is re f1 ected in the theory of the three pure types of legitimate domination. 丁he antinomical structure of the political as an autonomous sphere of values is 在gain much in evidence here. The way in which Weber tried to determine the legitimacy of

•

Po /i tics and Scholarsh伊

21

state power. Max Weber's sociological theo巧r oflegitimacy instead started from the factual observation of how much consent to legitimacy is given by the ‘ ruled' , that is in tl时 mpirically discernible willingness to s吨ject themselves to a particular system of domination and to accept its norms as persona11y bindil唱­ Seen from this perspective, for Max Weber 'illegitimate domination' could not exist at all as a type , but there could only ever be a greater or lesser degree of empirically extant consent to legitimacy. As is well known. Max 在reber distingui边ed three different pure 叩pes of legitimate domination: legal domination , in which the beHefin the legality oflaw which is posited in the correct form and according 旬出.e usual procedural rules is the basis oflegitimacy, quite irrespective of the question as to which su如tan­ tive legal principles are respectively at issue thereby; traditional domination , in which custom or precedent 甲 in other words，于投scriptive law' 叩 is the foundation of legitim在巧; and fìnally charismatic domination , which possesses or may make legal claim to legitimacy on the strength of the beHef in che charismatic qualifìcation of the leader in question and thus also ìn the lawfulness, indeed the absolutely binding force , of the valu岱， norms and goals laid down by 坠1m. Thus it is not normative criteria of a moral or ethical nature 也at dedde the legitimacy of a s严tem of domination but t怆 su与ective disposìtion of its su专jects in practice to accept 由e authority in question. 丁his comprehensive typology claims to take into consideration 在11 forms ofle哥timate domination at one fell swoop and to be 在pplicable in theo巧 to every system of domination known to us in history. Furthermore, this model also displays an antinomical structure. Inasmuch as legitimacy ought to be more than just the acceptance of the i部mutability of a s严tem of rule on the basis of 也e existence in practice of dominatio n, it always ultimately origin在tes in one single form , namely the charismatic foundation of political au白ority. Legal domination, on the other hand , surVi ves chiefly on the strength of what in practice exists. Legal domina白兔. as Weber emphasizes, owes its legitimacy f位 the most part to the routineness of the rules 住在t take effect 也rough it. Compared wit且也is the conceptually feasible model of a value-oriented legal order fades into insignifìcance. On 也eother hand 现feber presume革命at legal dominati

22

Politics and Social Theory

original1y intended,22 but categorized it as a variant of charismatic legitimacy, 在nd in fact as 在 version of charismatic rule supposedly 'free of domination\In Economy and Socie号I this is expressed with admirable clarity: "毛plebiscit盯lan democracy" 叫 the most important type of"leader democracy" - is in i岱 genume sense a type of charismatic rule which is concealed behind a type of1 egitimacy that is formal午始ived from and persists as a result of the will of the ruled.'23 These comparatively late p在ss在ges from part 1 of Economy and Society must be read in association wi出 the formulations in ‘Politics 在s a vocation', which were written at roughly the same time, about the necessi巧1 of a ‘ leader democracy with a machine' ，出at is，由e necessity of a combination of charismatical1y based leadership au出ority and bureauc主atic techniques of domination. 24 Even if Weber did not develop this new conception any more systematically, it does represent his fìnal answer to the question of how democratic au也ori巧r is still possible in an age of increasing bureaucratization and howmaximum social dynamism and individual freedom , however understood , can be achieved. In a way these remarks léad us back to where we started. Max Weber's theoretical ideas on ‘ plebiscitarian democracy' reflect his political opinions during 时 found在tional phase of the Weimar Republic. In the debates about the new imperial constitution in 1919-20 he supported systematically and with powerful rhetorical contributions constitutional solutions which pointed in just this direction, in particular by his insis主ence on a popularly elected presι dent; 七y virtue ofhis direct links wi出 the wil1 of the masses the Reich学räsident was to be an opening for the rise of political leaders over and above party machines and parliaments. In this way Weber hoped to assÎst a ‘ leader democra，巧， to come to the fore i口 G衍many， in which charismatical与 qualifìed politicians with a sense of foresight but also with a sense of proportion are at the h e1 m, instead of a ‘ leaderless democr在cy of professional politicians without a vocation'. Political science has viewed these suggestions of M在x Weber with a certain scepticism，。主 has taken them up in diluted 岛rm which leaves the problematic elements of his theo巧 mostly untouched. In the 1950S and 1960s especial1 y there were only a few political scientists who were really wil1ing to give their unconditional acceptance to Weber's conception of exceptional political leade

Politícs and Scholarsh伊

23

tended to reduce the ‘rime申bound' elements ofhis theory , above all the elirist bias ofhis conceprion of politicalleadership, to a pragm就ically acceptable level , to say nothing about his underlying narionalisric inclinations. Only rarely did anyo时 completely follow Max Weber's theory, with ìts explicit anrinomies and its extreme radicality of thought, which had so little in common with the empìricist modes of thought prevailing at the rime. Nowadays this has changed. Max Weber is agaìn attracring great interest as a thinker who strove to base political theory and polìtical acrion on fundamental valu atritudes which related to a definite image of humanìty. Indìvìduals, who must find their own way in a world increasingly dominated by anonymous forces, are thrown back upon themselves and their personal value-attitudes; given the lack of ìmperarive objective norms they 在re confronted with more and morεnew decisions for which no easy way out can be found in polirical reality. With some jusrificarioh, wilhelm 日ennis recently pointed out that Max Weber has nothing in common with that version ofliberalism which attempted to replacc the dominarion of ìndividuals over other indi世duals with the admìnist古arion of 出ings and thus assumed 也在t it could suppress strife and violence once and for all. 寸o force the individual into polìrical arrangements , to make him participate in the responsibiliries and the risks of出ese arrangemen怨， and ìf necess在ry even deliberately to submit these arrangements to external and internal risks, in oth仅 words not to exclude strife by institurional provision，岛ut rather in f羊ct to provoke it' - that is, according to Henr血， at t坦e centre of political theo巧合om Machiavel1i and Rousseau right 哼 as far as Max Weber. 25 丁his ìs parricularly 位ue of Max Weber飞往eo巧。f democratic dominarion. Tl出 was constructed of antinomies precisely because he did not want 怡然e 也eidea of stri公 eliminated; he wanted, on the contrary, to see it properly accentuated. The special advantage of parliamentary democracy lay not in the fact 也就出e struggle between polirical tendencies 在nd philosophies could be mediated through it but much rather that the w畔。fconducring 出is struggle could be perfected within the parliamentaIγconsriturional system. However, it does not follow from this that Weber was no liberal at all, as Hennis would have it. On 出e con衍a巧， there c在n be no doubt about Max Weber's polirical stance. He was a liberal who was no longer sarisfie

•

2

TheA旦tinomical

Structure of Max weber's Political Thought

Once in the midst of 如is discussion wi出 Heidegger， Karl ]aspers spoke of M揣 在!eber's ‘qu臼tions of great world-historical import whic h, though answerable in part through concrete critical re始arch， become，刽 questions， ever greater and more unanswerable\i Referring to Weber's philosophical and sociological work， ]aspe岱 lS saymg that in 出e concrete process of research it leads to 出εvery 坦mits of knowledge and 也就 the partial empirical solution to the 电uestions posed only raises new, t二r more complex questions. The .same can be said particularly of Max Weber's political thought. His probing questions led again and again to the very limits of the political positions which he held to be valid, laying bare the insoluble conflict between alternative ideal values in ultimatεsituations. This chapter will examine this phenomenon more closely in a particular area of Weber's political 也ought， namely, his basic attitudεtowards liberal democracy. Politically, Max Weber belonged to the tradition of German NationalLiberalism of the post-Bismarck era. Very early on, however, he began to commit himself to the left wing ofliberalism. He belonged to the group of German thinkers who, already before the turn of the centu巧， consistently demanded the parliamentarization of Imperial Germany. Yet his support for the liberalization of German society was tied to an impassioned nationalism which, already in the 1 890s, meant a commitment to German world politics on a large scale. 2 Within the context of the German po1itics of his time, Max Weber can best be characterized as a prominent representative of the kind of cultural imperialism 出at became fashionable in 出e late 1 890s in German intellectual circles, especially among university professors. The question whether his liberal convictions were self叫sustaining or rather just a means of enhancing the internal cohesiveness of the nation在1 power state is notωsy to answer. Yet there

The Antínomical Structure 吃fWeber 's Thought

25

can be no doubt that, for W出er， a strengthening of German liberalism was thinkable only ìn conjunction with vigorous natìonal power politìcs. Authors such as Jü吨en Kocka , David Beetham and Amho町 Giddens J have 。同jected to this interpretatìon, arguing that even 品。ughMaxW伦er may have made some important concessions on this point to the spirit of the age he was none the less fundamentally a true liberal, and thus his natìonalìst views are to be rated only as seconda可 lt would seem that there was a然 inherent comradictìon manifest in Weber's thought which has to be dealtwith as such and which is i孜孜eed ofbeing fur也er investìgated. This points to one of the parameters ofhis thinking in which the contradictìons betwcen alternatìve val的-positìons stand out sharply. It is true 也就 Max Weber did not alw咛s present his nationalistìc goals as emphatìcally 在s in the 1890s, but in principle the ideal of a strong natìon-state remained a dominent leitrnotiv in his political thought throughout his 1if己 冒出er pointed out explicitly and repeatedly that in his personal 且ierarchy of V在 lues 也e natìonal idea took precedence over questìons of a 1iberal constìtutional order: 'The arguments advanced here 机11 not influence those who do not hold, in principle, the historical tasks of the G盯man na柱。n as h主vlllg precedence over all other questìons concerning the form of government nor will t是巧 influence those who view these t部ks in a fundamentally different light.'5 Elsewhere Weber formulated this issue even more sharply:‘ For me, "demoi 如en an end in itsel f. My only interest has been and remains the cracy" has nev假 po娘拉li巧r of implementìng a realistic 豆豆在∞nal po坦cy of a stro吨， ex时m过与 oriented Germany.'6 Such a positìon does not lend itself to facile compromise. E飞.ather one has to take as one's point of departure the 在ct that Weber was a natìonalist as well as a 1iberal, even though 七。也 positìons are not readily compatible with one ano出创. We are confronted here 飞的.th an antìnomy in Weber's politìc在1 thought which will not simply disappear by way of compromise; it can be resolved only with坦白e framework of a systèmatìc interpretation. 丁he conflict which emerges here between two different ideal values appears to be symptomatìc of an important feature ofWeber's thinking. 暂伦er always advanced the ratìona1izatìon of a given position in the 主ght of certain ultìm在te ideals to the outermost limits, in 也is case, the ide址。f a strong German natìonstate on the one

?

Aν

， s磊. 舍暴

T

8铲 苦切叼哆

nfd"cd ''-v

aEa· FJ nu

内ν

AU

，饭

P .,,,,-1

庐 ι

26

?

evident.8 Such a position brings Max Weber together with Friedrich Nietzsche. Nietzsche had already maintained the basic principle that out of intellectual honesty one always had to follow any issue to the most consis优nt position thinkable , which should then become the yardstick for one's 出ink­ ing, regardless of the consequences for oneself, even when this could ultimately lead to selιdestruction. In this absolute unconditionality of the will to knowledge 乳reber had much in common with Nietzsch已 One can also find certain analogies in their lives. Max Weber's attitude towards 1i岳 has often been aptly described as 也在to俨heroic pessimism', an atritude characterized by an inherent conf1ict 社tw优n antagonistic value-posirions in contraιlisrincrion to the abandonment of self to comfort主ble everyday resolurions. Max Weber used the expression ‘ 1 want to see how much 1 can endure.' This statement is to be understood fu l1 y in 出e Nietzschean sense. Yet in the case ofWeber this fundamental atritude of 'heroic pessi~sm' also take on a rarionalisric form. Like the' Puritan who conducted his li岳飞NÌth iron discipline, orienring it towards certain normarive values whose origins were outside everyday life and rarionalizing it to the utmost, Weber saw it as the duty of every individual to face the problems and conflicts with which one was confronted in complete sobriety and without any illusions and to reduce the givell oprions to the underlying fUlldamental problems of valu俗， without paying heed to the dominant opinions of the d句· Hence 也ere are great similariries between W丛er's alld Nietzsche's basic structure of 也inking.Bo出 men always traced the concrete problem back to the level on which the value-quesrions which were normally hidden emerged to fu l1 view. It is true that one rarely finds Nietzsche being explicitly quoted in Weber's sociological work, even though he is quoted, and not by chance, precisely in those places where Weber addresses fundamental ideological problems or world占istorical perspectives, as is the case at the end of The Protestant Ethic or in ‘ Sciellce as a vocarion'. In any case, there can 七e no doubt that Weber was profoundly influe附d by Nietzsche, although it m巧 be going too far to interpret Weber's work as the result of a permanent dialogue between Nietzsche and Marx , as has been suggested by BaumgartenY Weber shared with Nietzsche the conviction 出at only the individual, as a rule only the outstallding individ

The Antinomical Structure 吃fWeber's Thought

27

analogous light. He alone, on the basis of person在1 convictions which are not simply a reflection of given conditions, but 在re rather rooted in fundamental value响。ríentations， is in 在 position to give society the force needed to go beyond the routine of everyday life. 气万eber explicitly r飞jected， however, the extreme consequence of an aristocracy of the spirit which Nietzsche derived 丘。m thís fact , namely, the notion that only the outstanding individual had the calling and the capaci咛 to establish new values. Weber did not s且are Nietzsche's dislíke for the masses (die Vielzuvielen). Nietzsche's view that ‘ the meaning of world history resides exclusively in its highest exempl革rs' was even less acceptable to him. On the contrary, only those indíviduals who are able to induce the masses to follow them voluntarily are truly great and capable of creative and form在tive politics. In contrast to Nietzsche's ethic of the master which culminated in the outright 尺jection of all democratic politícs , Weber adhered to the fundamental principles ofli七eralism which hold sacrosanct the dignity of the indivídual 在nd aspire to see society organized in such a way that all individuals may preserve a maximum of free initiative. At 也e same time, however, Weber 在pproached with 主 Nietzschean radicalism of thinking the 守lestion how far the classicalliberal theory still maintained its inner consistency and stringency under mode主n conditions. In certain areas and with a lirnited purpose Weber brought about a reformulation of the content of liberal the。可 in a way which could de是nitively be comp在red wi也 Nietzsche's postulate of ‘出et主ansvaluation of all values'. Progre然ively，部 part of his endeavour to formulate a defìnitive conception of parliamenta巧呻 democratic dornination which would correspond to the times，枪 击lt the 附d to discard or rather reformulate in the process generally accepted liberal conceptions: Once again, positions which had originally coexisted in 在n unclear relationship started progressively to diverge unti4 fìnally，也巧 took on an antinornical structure. The unconditionality of Weber's 出inking， which the latter owed to Nietzsche, and the clear appreciation of the power character of all social relations, w孟ich he learned f云。mMa抠， led him fìnally to abandon the framework of classicalli七eral the。可 and to search for new, more solid founda明 tions for liberal postulates. This 权treme radicalization of alte

28

Politiιs and Social

Theory

the moment the ideal values which come into play are pushed to the limits of their validity. Let us fìrst examine the question how it was possible for Weber to 怡 atthe same time a resolute liberal and a rugged nationalist, one for whom it was imperative that Imperial Germany conduct vigorous world po1irics, even to the point of not excluding the option of war, if necessa吓 From our present..:.day perspective it beωmes clear 出at b。在 these ideals stand in contradiction to one anoth优 Indeed， the principle of'individual self.嗣determination' is hardly com巾 p就ible wi出 a 'world politic矿 which had as its objective the es的 li边ment ofa hegemonic supremacy o fI mperial Germany over the European conrinent vis-à抽 vis 白e smaller nations. 丁here are some valid grounds forassuming that Max Weber advocated a v埠。rous German imperialism primarily for tacrical reasons; 也就 is to say, that he saw the inauguration ofGerman imperialism primarily as a means to achieve a fundamental liberalization of German socie可. As it were , Web盯 propagated the imperial idea in order to 主讲t the conservarives with their own weapons. A consistent imperialist policy implied a恕。prion for the industrial state; 也e latter, however, was 在t the same time directed, at least indirec t1y, against the traditionally pre-eminent posirion of the agrarian conservatives in state and society. A rarional imperialist policy called for the modernizarion of German sociery; on the one hand, to provide the necessary material resources and, on the othεr hand, to m在ke possible the kind of in衍rnal national unity needed for such a policy. In this sense，由e imperialist idea could serve precisely as a kind of ideology of emancipation directed against the hegemony of the Prussian aristocracy in German society, thereby leading to a liberalization of the political system. Weber 出ought that in this way liberalism would take up again a new positive task and receive new momentum as the carrier of a grand programme oriented towards 也e future. However, irrespective of these primarily tactical points of view which permitted him as 在 liber在1 simultaneously to propagate imperialist policies, Weber was an imperialist out of conviction. He thought that in an age of imperial power conflicts it w在s simply 也e duty of the German Reich to assert itself as a world power if only in order to 硝sure a place on e孟rth fo军 German culture in the centuries to come. Apparently, even in 1911 , when Weber was for a time actively supporting

The Antinomical Str础

29

a川sa叼ym 艺d 也 he decis剑lOn.绸精唰栅翩帽嗣斗唰 i均 i电 ght 扰t of the avail 过la均 ble data one cannot but ∞ c O双盯cl抬 udeε t巾 hat ~品 or Ma以 x 京审leεeb 忱e盯r an activ 吮e German impe主n毒过li沁stic $汉 policy was mo 伺芷re 也 tha付 ust a clever strategy to give new life to German liberalism. He passionately supported in纪rnal reforms at home , moreov忧 as a necessary counter-measure to the policy of pursuing a vigorous course in politics abroad. In any case it was also more than just a tactical means of enhancing the power of the G世man nation-state, even though ìt was frequencly expressed in such a manner as to suggest such a conclusion. Indeed，也e ques功on which of the two hierarchies of values, the nationalist or the liber泣， had pre阳eminence for Weber cannot be answered unequÍvocally. Rather one has to proceed fro豁出e assumption 出at one is dealing with an anrinomy of a fundamental nature in 百eber's thinking. In fact, one could say that for the most part W论er scorned facile compromise or middle positions. Even though 如e recognized in principle the need for pragmatic solutions in politics, he did not admit of such solutions when dea1in在 wl也 conflicts of fundamental values. He repeatedly pointed out 也就 it was the fate of modern m毒n to have to deal simultaneously wi也 different ideas and valu orientations which were in conflict with one anothe主 in his own h悦汉. This appears to be particularly the case as regards his political attitude, which w却在t once that of 孟 convinced 凶er过 and 出at of a re单位rely moderate German nationalist. None the less, it is possible to trace 出ese two apparently incompati是le positions 弘ck to a common fundamental premise. Max Weber's point of departure was the conviction that sodetywas threatened in its basic elements by the universal' processes of bureaucratization 在nd rationalization of all spheres of 1ife. It was therefore necess缸y to preserve at alllevels of socialli五 amax1mum of dynamic forces or to promote them wi也 all the means available. In 在 certain sense, We七位 wanted to maintain as unr指出cted as possi峙， even under the conditions of mass industrial socie可， the dassic principle of competition, that 15，也.e struggle between the various individuals and groups in societyfor their ideal 0主 material intere吉思 Thus he called for a liberalization of the cons岳 阳tional system at home which would at once set 金时也.e spontaneous activities of groups and organizations wi也m 出e social system. Weber viewed the exis

•

30

PoUtics and Social Theory

Once Ìt became clear to him 袖er the outbreak of the First World War that 出e heyday of the au tonomous narion-state had passed and that a 岳w hegemonic power structures would come in rime to replace the many sovereign nationstates of va巧ring rank, Max Weber wanted 也就cure a hegemonic position for Germany within Europe. This hegemonic posirion, which}妃， for one, wished to be restric泛d to inf与rmal methods of domination, was necessary in order to guarantee the narion加states of central Europe above all a proper and secure place within the system of wo主ld powers that was in the process of 七eing formed. A plurality of narional power scates and a system of powers in whic兑 the individual polirical and social systems would confront one another in permanent contest seemed to him to be 在 precondition for the pres~rvation of a hig是 degree of freedom and dynamism within the socie巧r ofEuropean and even world powers. In 也is respect 出ere is a link between Weber's advocacy of a comparatively moderate German imperialism and his liberal ideas, a link which is able partially to bridge the above. menrioned contradiccion between both positions. The competitive stru韶le of the superpowers within the international system and the tensions between the different social structures and social orders were not merely a 也reat to peace. 丁hey also had a positive func柱。n， even. though Weber himselflamented 也在ct that the European states were forced to invest a far 丘。m insignificant part of their gross narional product in the relatively unproducrive arms race. In Weber's theoretical statements on 也e nature of democracy and the lib盯al order, one can also find thεsame tendency to balance out posirions which are diametrically opposed. Weber was convinced that, given the social conditions which emerged in the advanced industtial societies of the West, classicalliberal ideas had largely lost their concrete power of expression or, at least, their unequivocal meaning. For him líber主1 consriturional rights had become either truisms or et主lPty formulas which as such could not offer any orientarion although, like daily bread, one could not do without them. 12 Weber recogl让zed the m号。r historical relevance of the theory of natural rights as it was first developed by the Levellers, but he believed that under modern conditions the theo巧 had progressively lost its significance and was being replaced by posiri飞ristic， formal-legal norms. Thu ……

The Antínomical Structure 电fWeber's Thought

31

Weber soon realized that，也llowing the emergence of late capitalism, farre在ching transformarions had also appeared in the character of the decisionrn在king processes and the types of policy formarion within liberal socieries. 丁he rise of ple七iscitary dernocracy , together with the ernergence of modern, bureaucraric party organizarions, had radically transforrned the condirions under which the individual could srill have an influence upon polirical events , thereby fundamentally transforming the p纪rnises of democraric politics. Max Weber's conception of parliamentary democracy had little in common with the fundamentalist jusrifìcarions of democratic authority which had customa主ily been part of the ideological tradirion of theW，仪 since Rousseau. One has to admit that it is not easy to reconstruct precisely Max Weber'旷i前e liberal' posirion. He was in agreementwith the 1iberal tradition in assuming that a free socie巧i had in principle to grant al1 its cirizens 在 maximum of selι determinarion and , therefore, of parriciparion in all polirical decisions. Ye挝t for him this was a SriPl时 1过la 扭 rion wl挝 1让ich ， given modern con址 diri ∞ 10ns队， 挝 1lad los红tp 严ract忧 i北 C孟a l1亏 Y all 时 it岱s me 创 a 刽mt rions the people as a whole were in 革 posirion tωode岱rm 双1让ine their own polirical destiny rhrough free elecrions. 丁he only trait disringuishing consriturional democracies from other forms of dorninarion was the fact that the former had 孟 system of ‘ formally free' elecrions of their leaders; in other words, the people themselves selected 也elr own ‘rulers飞 while in other 斗机ems the selecrion of the politicalleadership was always made from a more or less closed ruling class. Once Max Weber expressed this posirion most empharically when addressing Ro berto Michels: ‘ How much more resignarion will you srill have to endure? Conceprs such as "popular 轨rill"， and genuine will of the people do not exist fo主 me any more.τ如y are fìcrions.'13 Diverging from the classical foundarion of democracy in naturallaw, constiturional democracies are disringuishable from other forms of dominarion primarily by the faαthat the people are in a posrion to choose in a formally 丘ee way those leaders who appear more suited tha l1 others to represent their interests and their goals. Yet, according to Weber,14 and from the perspecrive of 出.e ìndividuals making up the masses, this fact did not me

•

32

Poli始ti，￥ iα cssa ω m宫 d Social Th化化e树yF

persons, should act out of their own free initiative and should never be subjected to external determination. There is, on the oth时 hand， the insight that all social relations are ultimately relations of domination and that even the difl岳rent 可pes of democracy do not basically overcome domination, that is, the external determination of individuals 均 other individuals事 At best democracy can create the optimum conditions in which the individ叫's own initiative is 吨jected to the least possible restrictions. Max Weber's reflections on the best possible form of democratic domination moved within the area of tension between these two fundamental principl邸， that is，如tween the principle of individual selfdetermination as the formal condition for the possibility of freedom in general, and the principle of domination as th们naterial precondition for a social order in which a maximum of freedom is possible in the 6rst place. The postulate that democratic domination should always be based on the conse挝 ofthesu战jects was for Weber 部 obviousωitw部 trivial.飞Jndεrmodern conditions this was materially inevitable. According to Weber~ if democratization was to have a precise meaning at all, it could only be that of ‘ a minimalization of the power of the civil servants in favour of the most "direct" rule of the "demos" that was possíble, and in practice that means the rule of its party leaders."5 Thus Weber wanted to reformulate the da始cal 1iberal demand fo主 the selιdetermination of the people to mean the right of the people to choose their own leaders in a formally 丘ee way, together with institutional arrange.…· ments which guaranteed 出e resignation or the replacement of their leaders whenever they had lost the trust of the masses. From a realistic perspective, according to 暂eber， democracy can at best mean domination 均 freelyelected leaders, who are then in a position to proceed essentially at their own discretion. It can never mean the superseding of domination by a system of policy formation 丘om the bottom up. Ifm创sured according to the dassic críteria of democratic authori巧，‘the right to free election ofleader矿 is insu f6cient as such. y，时留eber was convinced that this was ‘ not so insignificant', rather that it was actually the very substance of democratic domination. 1ó In contrast to the formal basis of democratic domination in the consensus of the people who elect their legislators for the running of the state apparatus, Weber introduces the i

The Antinomical Structure 吃fWeber兰 Thought

33

qualities of those who have the calling to lead and to rule. Through the use of theìr personal charìsma and their - in the posìtive sense of the word demagogìc capabiliti臼， the leaders procure for them忧lves a following from among the people whom 出ey need in order to achieve their own personal ends. Throughout 出is process the people play merely a passive role. For Weber, at least in the mode i:n mass states穿白必 personal plebiscitarian form of establishing political authority and , with it, individually 在ccountable domination was simply inevitable. Only under the conditions of small geographical areas like the Swiss cantons did Weber conceive of dìrect forms of politic在1 policy 如ma阳 tion from the bottom up as a practical possibìlit)几 We are faced here with yet another antinomical position ìn Weber's conception of democracy. On the one hand, the prìnciple of individual selι determìnation was to be guaranteed by the principle of the formally free，由atlS， subs也 ntially unrestricted choice of the respective leaders，础 well as by the addi呻 tional support of elections 也rough parliamentary institutions. On 也e other hand , democratic leadership is in principle a variant of c也rismatically 民sed authority which, as suc坛， derives 丘。m and is legìtimized by the wil1 of the ruled only in form but not in su七stance. Accordin在 to Weber，由e leaders rule excluslve忡忡吭rtue of their own p臼sonal responsibility. In a盯 case， they are not to be viewed substanti在lly or materially as executors of 出e wil1 of the electorate. Moreover, their ruling au出ority is based largely, if not exclusively, on the emotional belief of the voters and of their supporters in 出eir formal qualifìcation for leadership. The substantive issues, meanwhile, recede into the background and have a direct inf1uence upon the relations between the leaders and their followers only in extremeωses. AccordingωWeber， only in this way, thanks to the extraordinary ideals ofωmmìtted individuals, could leadership be ensured. Weber advanced 由is position wi出 the utmost rigour to its utmost conceptual limìts precisely because under 也e ìnfluence of the developments ta挝吨 place in Germany after 1918 he was convinced that an effective democratic order and, in a broader sense, a free society were simply not possible without great leaders who would act out of 出eir own sense of personal responsibility. 丁hus 如 was being thoroughly consÌstent when, in the context 0

34

Politics and social Theory

lt is here tha艺 the antinomian structure of Weber's theo巧， of democracy emerges most clearly. The demand for the strongest possible personal plebiscitary rulership and the postulate of the self-determination of the ci tÎzens as guaranteed through a parliamentarian system of representation are in what at fìrst 在ppears to be an insoluble antinomical relationship. Yet, at the same time, they are complementa巧 elements of an efficient parliamentary democracy. In Weber's conception, the logical consequence of the second principle, namely, the Untεstrained enforcement of the will of the masses vis-à翻山 the state rulers, together with the demand for the greatest possible ‘ minimalízation of the domination of man over man\would lead to the emergence of 在 'leaderless democracy' (拚声拗hre巾牛 one cha阳t忧e巾ed 均 byd检 1泛eru 盯川 ule of politi 让 itieωi 丛在缸 阳双汩 m 1S who 盼 o did noωO 1 』缸 a阿 ve those int忧ern 残1在过1 cha 盯n总smacic qualities w虽汩ich 揽 rE双1在众 ke the leade臼r.户8 ln such a s叮 ystem， politics becomes mere routine wi也 no room for creative political acts. From a universal-historical perspective Weber saw in this form of democratic domination a serious danger for the continued existencεofindependentand free stuctures in the Western world. By cont主ast， he regarded as comparatively negligible the danger that the democratic rule of the F'ührer , legitimated through personal plebiscite, could turn into a dict在torial (or even fascist) regime, even though he 1由附lfl叫 pointed out that in general 'leader democracies'were 筝characterized' by a highly emotional 叩pe of devotion to and ttust in the leader and that 出is accounted for a tendency ‘ to follow as a leader the rype ofindividual who is most unusual, who promises the most or who employs the most effective propaganda m也sures'.I
The Antinomical Structure ofWeber's Thought

35

ization of all aspects of social li岳 which would slowly but steadily lead to a paralysis of all individual initiative. At the end of 也is process one would no longer be able to speak of any sort of freed锢在t alL Weber thought there was a possibility that the free societies of the West could sink gradually into a new version oflate antiquity. 丁hus 也e most decisive 守lestion for him was 宅。叽 10 view of the prevailing tendency to 七ureaucratization ， would it still be possible to salvage some 走ind ofves艺igial freedom of mov创nent for the individual'.20 暂eber was convinced that 也is demand was especially relevant for the political regimes of his time. He saw as an immediate possibility the danger that the modern welf主主e state and mass democracy would degenerate into a static society and 也at political and social mobility would increasìngly decline. This would imp句， however , th在t the room for 丘eedom (in what ever sense one would choose to define the word), which for the time being still existed in industrial societies, would progressively be reduced. Weber evidently had good reason to be inclined to the view that under the conditions of modern industrial society not only authoritarian state systems such as that of Imperial Germany but even parliam∞tarian democ玄acies had a tendency to become ‘leaderless\The appeal of the charisma of the great po1itician appeared to him to be 出e only means of ensuring a maximum of effective politic过 leadership in modern societies. He hoped that the combination of these two alternative 勾pes of domination would restore 耻 condi∞nsund盯 which 食eedom' could henceforth be mo妃出an 在 mere formula - even in late capitalist mass soci伺机由 its numerous bureaucratic organizations.τne two 可pes were: democratic dornination, which derived from the consensus of a sovereign people, a 咛pe which tended towards the loss of authoI毛主y; and a specific variant of charismatic dornination based on the personal authority of the great charismatic politician. Under modern conditions, however, even a charismatically based plebiscitarian ‘ leader democracy' could not manage without the elements essential to a 七ureaucratic adrninistrative apparatus or without a bureauc室atic party organ崎 ization, both acting 豁出e ‘obedient servants' of 出eir respective leaders. Their role is to ensure that the decisions of出e leaders, which originated in the leader's own personal responsibil坷，七e accep主ed 血d， at the same time, efficiencly enacted in th

AV

Fι

-1 P ·szt #aιV

36

CJ dHH

n , cuo et fseeT'hHp"nv wr AM

paw

AM

machine or wìth an elected offìcialdom like the old American system. 21 Weber concluded that under modern conditions they were no longer viable. Only the combination of charismatic leadership wi出 stτict burea\主cratic discipline appeared to him to hold any promise. Weber expressed 也is position most clearly in 吟吟:‘there is only 白e choìce between "leader democracy" with a "mac坦ine" or "leaderless democracy", i.e. the rule of "professional politicians without a calling", that is, without the inner charismatìc qualities wmch go to make up a true leader.'22 One could say that for Max Weber the best chance for securing an open society with a maximum degree of freedom and an optimum degree of individual self-determination for all was to be found not so much in the mixture of alternatìve political principles of organization as in their dialectical combinarion. Weber came to similar conclusions in ms analysis of the economic 时， system. Ve巧 early on he bec在me concerned with the questìon of the origins of C在pitalism， and especially with its long-term socio-mstorical consequences. It was his 飞ri.ew 出at modern industrial capitalism, wmch was essentiallya creation of the Protestant 七ourgeoisie and whic缸 had triumphed in its early capitalist phases of development over the older, traditional feudal and corporatist societies, created mstorically uni电ue preconditions for the emergence ofliberal ideas in state and society. But he doubted that 出e same conditions were still valid for a capitalism wmch had developed into its mature form. In ms an在lysis of the 1905 RussÌan Revolution, wmch Western liberals had viewed for the most part as a secul在r breakthrough of 1iberal principles wmch would lead as wel1 to the triumph of a liberal order in Russia, Weber wrote: ‘One can only laugh at the tendency to ascribe ∞严部ent-day late capitalism this "inevitabi1ity绑 of our economic development 甲 of the kind being imported into Russia and 在lready existing in America elective affìnities wi出 "democracy" or even with "freedom" in any sense of the ten丑. The question to be posed is: how can a11 these things (individualliberties，也e rights of man and so 岛rth) be possible at a11 in 出e longrun?唱 Weber was convinced that economic development itself was leading to an ever-increasing restriction of freedom and 在at， therefore, one had to struggle to e由rce liberal principles in late capitalism ‘ against the tide of material circumstances'.24 Weber was deeply concerned

The Antínomícal Structure 吃fWeber's η!O ught

37

to 革ssert themselves against the biglconcerns and enterprises without the neces-…

sity of additional protective measures from the state or that they could sti l1 be effective in securing appropriate wages for the working classes. Yet he rejected most emphatically a mediation of trade union power throug且 direct state intervention or through state-regulated arbitration. He wanted. namely, to avoid a curt在ilment of the competitive struggle between the working classes and the employers' associations. f王e deemed it was necessa巧， instead , to look for ways of improving indirectly, through 在ppropriate metho缸， the starting conditions of the working classes in potentiallabour struggles. 2s In 1912 he tried to bring new life into the stagnaring social politics of Germany 句 foundingan 路sociarion of people active in social policy. The 0乌jective of such an 在ssociation was to ease the relarions 七etween employers and employees 拍d to pave new ways for the emanciparion of the working classes within the exisring system.26 In his e岱ays onγne Pri。如tant Ethíc and the Spirit cif Capitalísm 27 one can fìnd the most powerful formularion ofWeber's fear that ifle仕 to run its course undisturbed ‘late capitalism' would brit王军、 new age of serfdom' not unlike the one of late antiquity. Modern capitalist industrial society, organized according to the principle of purely formal rationali句， could lead into a dehumanizarion of the world of work and further the displacement of che indi飞ridual personality from sociallife. 冒出er failed, however, to fìnd a real solution. The alternarive proposed by Marx, that 点也e socializarion of the m臼ns of producrion as a panacea to free the working classes from opp段ssion， was for Weber only a surrogate and not a solurion, since 出e socializarion of the means of producrion i sal trend to would only strengthen even more the already exisring univ岱 如王室eaq.cratizarion. Apart from 出忌， the modern industrial system could simply not do wi血。ut the iniriarive of energeric, individualisric ent主epreneurs. 28 剧 11 耐 tt Et码占íc and 加 th 加eS 牛pμi巾号 伊 cifGα a纠 p仰 ít，talisn 叽 F Alr臼eady in 茹占εp刷ωaω po 悦int纪 ed out that ca注 pl艺梳al如 i拎sm， which waS entering i 岱 m在 ture stage, no longer needed the specifìc individualistic driving force to which it owed its origins. Rather it enforced, whether those aff与cted by it liked it or not, a 可pe oflife相 conduct in accordance with its technocraric needs: ‘The Puritan wanted to work ln a voc

38

Politics and Socia! Theory

Max Weber , highly productive modern capitalism in all its manifestations was based on the principle of 'formal rationality' , that is, on the uniform rational calculation of all its operations for the purpose of ensur如g a maximum degree of performance and effìciency. The decision whether to submit to the iron rule of fo ì:mal rationality or not was simply no longer in the hands of the individuals and groups to which it was applicable, in the hands neither of the entrepreneurs nor of the labour forcε. It was simply enforced 七y market compe位tion. ‘Formal rarionality二 at least as a regulative idea, was the basic principle of the capitalist ord抵 A capita1ism structured for the purpose of maximizing its own fundamentallaw requires，自rst of all,‘the constant s位uggle of autonomous groups in the market place'; second,‘the possibi1ity of a rational calculation of prices unde主 conditions of unrestrlcted competition in the market'; 也ird，‘formally free la书。ur'， in other words , labour based on free wage contracts, which made possible a direct correlation between actual production and the wage; and, 在nal1y， some出mgw县lC且 was specifically stress叶， ‘主革e expropriation. of the means of production from the workers'. This meant thàt in its pure form the capitalist system not only imposed conditions over whic挝 the individual no longer had any influence but actually, in order to main臼in itself, required the use of instruments of domination and oppression. It is well known 出atWeber againand 在gain explicitly characterized the formally 全优 labou主 relations which workers unde主 capitalism had to enter into vÎs-à翩vis their employers as yet another form of domination. At times he even stressed that a m以imum of ‘ formal rationality' in the capitalist system was inevita七ly bought at the price of ‘ substantive irratio叫ities'， such as ‘the 剑问jugation of 如 workers under the domination of the employers'.3o One can also note here that Weber greatly emphasized the innate tendency of captalism to shackle man in a system of unbroken dependence产 thus even accentuating Marx's thesis. 32 Weber's intention was to show that in developed industrial societies the c在pitalist principle of social organ泣ation，出at is，也e principle of ‘ forrnaI rationality' , was almost inevitably in contradiction with the principle 0俨substantive ra柱。nality飞The classicalliberal idωs， especially the principle of individual selιdeterminatio

The Antínomícal Structure 吃fWeber's Thought

39

strategy proposed 均 Marx - namely, that of a socialist revolution through which the masses would liberate themselves 金。m their ‘alienation' - as inapplicable ín every respect. On the contra巧， a socialist revolution which entailed the expropriation of the means of production and its control by a class of state functionaries … this being the only form of socialist economy which to Weber's mind presented any chance for survival 叩 would only exace出ate the existing problems, since it would advance even further the universal tendency of the bureaucratization of al1 social relations, including those of the economic sphere. Besides, the expropriation of the means of production would not of itself elìminate 也e class struggle, nor would it improve the conditions of the workers in any significant way. On the contrary, the chances for the latter to represent their specific interests successfully vis-à-vis the class which owned the means of producrion would be far worse than under the conditions of the private capitalist system, where there was still room to play off the class which owned the means of production and 也e political rulers against each other. According to Weber, a dynamic marke←onen艺ed economic system stil1 0岱red the best precondirions for guaranteeing a maximum of dynamism and thus , indirectly，在 maximum of freedom in modem socie怀 Accordingly， Weber was in principle in favour of the retention, whenever possible, of the free market, since he wanted to preserve at all costs 出edynamice岱ctsithad 呼on society as a whole. That is w如ylll 吟吟， at the height of the German 丑.evolution， he 戏jected all forms of the so-called ‘mixed economy' and cal1ed for a retum to pure comperitive capitalism of the classic type. If G时man society ever w在nted to regain its forme主 positio总 in the world market, it simply could not do withι out the dynamic force of entrepreneurs lik.e Thyssen or Stinnes. There is 主 paradox here. On the one hand, Weber argued t抽出eimmanent tendencie.s of capitalism were wor挝ng for stagnarion and for the ossification of social relations. Yet, on the other hand, he viewed the principle of capitalist market comperition as an instrument which above all would guarantee a maximum of dynamis黯 in the economic as well as in the politic在1 system. This paradox found a partial resolurion in 出e polìrical sphere. Weber assumed that the state could play à rel在rively autonomous role wi出1ll 也εtotalsocialsyste

d

-zaT Av wa ar 和

, naAV nAHH

CJ AH

Z勿M

AU

俨也

nA,,,,.tt,

，ι

40

market-economic, i.e. competitively oriented, criteria, and should 也erefore be free of direct state con纹。1. On the other hand，也e state has to operate at times as an 'interventionist state' - if one may use a concept which was not yet in use in Weber's time. Certainly for W，由r the most important t戚。f 在e liberal state was to guarantee those pluralistic st主uctures which would allow for the free competition of conflicting interests within a legally defìned framework. This becomes especially clear in Weber's attitude towa由 labour legislation and towards the principle of ‘ the welfare state', which began to evolve in his lifetime. 飞'fJeber's attitude, which at fìrst seems ambivaler式， points once ag公纭， 均en viewed more closely , to an antinomical position. Weber was a dedicated champion of a p吨resslve 以ial policy whose 。飞jective wasωcompensate 也r theαisting inequ在li巧。f opportunities which affected dif玩rent social groups. Weber supported such a policy even when it was secured at the expense of a less rational organization of capi阳list prodlzction-Yet, at dc same time, kc repeatedly argued that social policy should not simply allocate cεrtain fìxed material advantages to the various groups. Its function ra出er was to crωte 出e contextual framework in which the parties could contend for their ideal and material interests within the existing legal order. For Weber feared nothing as much as a form of social organization in which certain social groups could, so to speak, automatically come up with fìxed clairns 吨。n specifìc shares of the social product, and thus bring a kind of deadly artifìcial peace to social relations. Because of this, he occasionallyαpressed serious reservations concerning the modern welfare state. For Weber the welfare state presented great dangers for a free socìery inasmuc且在s it would grant soci在1 securiry to the masses under conditions which would undermine their readiness to struggle constantly for the safeguarding or amelioration of their own econornic and soci在1 position and thus would contribute to the formation of an attitude of passive adap稳tionand complacency in the same way it had created a rentier mentaliry in sections of the Ge rman bourgeoisie. In 1905 Weber wrote: 33 'In Am erica's "benevolent feudalism" ，点也e German so-call叫 "welfare institutions", in the Russian 吁在ctory system" , eve巧where the system of ser副om is already at hand; we just have to wait until the diminishing speed of technological and economic

p

Tl1EAMiff10fiiiwistrt础

41

particular social groups in socìe巧， without, however, mediating their competi咄 tive struggle with one ano出er. ln Economy and Society , following Marx rather closely, Weber essential与 proceededωreconstruct the classicalliberal model of a pure market-oriented capitalism. This was to serve as the standard when asc仅taining in each case the social costs resulring from po1icy measures which deviated from the ideal course of the formal rationality of a free, comperitively oriented social order. A policy of state intervenrion in the social and economic sub-systems for the purpose of rnaintaining the existing pluralistic structures, and 也us guaranteeing a maximum of dynamics within the social system, demanded a sttong and 在t the same time independent state power. In conttast to the liberal tradition, Weber openly advocated a strong state as the very condition making freedom possible , however it is understood. Once again, one fìnds here a dassic postulate of 1iberalism - namely, the independence of society from the Statε 四 combined with its antinornical counter-principle, th拭 of a powerful interventionist state. We忱r sc。在马d at the old li七eral ideology demanding the greatest possible restraint of the state in the economic and social spheres, for ‘ the root~ of democracy can拟在row in the 衅叮o the 时itional ideal of ‘ the minimalization of the domination of m在n over man' in f主vourof 吐le administration of things' , Weber consistently opposed the idea1 of a strong state (although, of course, with parliament缸ycon衍01斗 whose leader w在s capable of purposeful action and was in a position to lay down the objectives for economic and socia1 groups户 The dialectica1 opposition between ‘ leader' and ‘ followers' which one fìnds in Weber's theory of democratic domination has to be seen 扭曲 same light. It is well known that Weber r飞jected outright 即 so-ca11ed mandate principle which formally bound the ruling po坦ticiansωthew过1 of their electors. Like唰 wise, he unde主stood 出at the obligation of democratic politicians to take into account the consensus of the voters was for the most part a mere form a1ity, at least to the extent that the g主eat political leader always had to act solely in accordance with 挝s personal convictions, and therefore whenever necessary had to obtain the consent of his f己llowers through demago萨cm饵ns (in the most favourable sen:se of the word). Only a plebiscitarian democracy, one led by great charismatically 电

42

Politiι5 and Social

Theory

in the dialectical opposition between, on the one hand , the politicalleader who acts exclusively out ofhis own sense of responsibility, drawing inspiration from his own idea忌， and, on the other, the masses who a陀 inevitably condemned to passi飞rity. As 在 rule ‘plebiscitarγdemocracy' scill makes use of conventional instruments, such as parliament and a constitution在1 system, which ensure that political conflicts are kept within limits. At the s在me time , however , he emphasizes the charisma of the great plebiscitarian politidan who , when in power, is in a position to go beyond parliament and the administrative apparatus in order to appeal direc t.与 to the masses. 性le model of the constitutional state in its parliament在rian variant, which as a type belongs to that oflegal domination, is here combìned wi出 the charism在tic principle of domination by n 芷 1 virtue of person在1 authority which derives formally，执lt not substantiv 啊el忖 y， 企 fìrom (伊 and 拮 i s le 吨 原it豆i泣白mati g 盯t优ed by 井) the ∞ cO挝e创ns\王s of ‘tl 出 he ruled'. Apparently Weber saw no reason to mitig在te in any way, much less to abandon，由e antinomical character ofhis theo巧。f democratic domination. For his part, Weber believed that this problem could never be resolved, be it on the level of constitutional procedures oron 如 level of 由eoretical re f1 ection. Ultima跄ly， it was up to 由 responsible politicallead盯 to deal with these contradictions in his own person. In the 1ight of the subsequent experience with fascism , one cannot but fìnd o ‘ jectionable a theorγof democratic domination which accentuates rather toO emphatically the pre-eminencεof the politicalleader in contrast 艺。 the mass of citizens. Such a theory has not always been able to prove itself immune to a reinterpretation in an authoritarian, even 岳阳风 directio缸， as demonstrated after all by the case ofRoberto Michels, who justifìed his support for Mussolini and Italian fascism by explìcitly re如ring to Weber's 出eory of the charismatic po1itician. 38 Yet, at the same time, one should not overlook the fact 出at such a meam吨 was certai咔削 intended by Weber. 1主estro鸣 emphasis he placed upon the principle of democratic leadership in his writings and lectures ot 吟 18-19 to the relative neglect of the opposite principle oflegìtimation of personal authority through the plebiscitarian 岛rmation of consensus was brought about for the most part by specifìc historical circumstances. Presumably, under different circumstances, Weber wo

士'he Antinol1'仰 IStn仰υfWe如此 Tho 咆ht

43

was ídeologícal in nature. 在e was inclíned instead to accept as the only vi也le solurion the dialecrical combinarion of anrinomical posirions within an open system where each responsibly actin在 individual would haveωdeal with the given conflicring values. Within the parameters he laid down , which derived from liberal as well as Nietzschea狂 posirions， one could not go any further at the theorerical leve1. Science found itself reverring to a condirion in which it was not in the posirion to formulate defìnirive truths, but only a number of alternarive mod e1s of thinking or alternarive models of conduct which ulrirnately cancelled each other out. Thus everything would again come down to the autonomy of the indívidual person who, though having 在 moral oblígarion to rarionali巧， was basically free to choose. This circumstance also explains 白念在mbivalence of many of the concrete political posirions and s位ategies maintained by Weber. With a clarity unrivalled anywhere else. his work reflec豁出e fact that liberalism was no longer viable as a self-contained politic在1 philosophy with clear叫出 solurions availa七le for every social and polirical problem;w Determined to advance liber在1 and democratic postulates to their ultimate limits, while at the same time confront蛐 ing them with the social reali巧。f advanced in出strial society. Weber was led to develop systematically the anrinomical potεntial inherent in these postulates. Weber elaborates on the dic协助mous contrasts by cutting through the at fìrst seemingly harmonious surface and revealing its antinomical structure. Here Weber saw the only chance for a maximum degree of real freedom. The same is also valid for his specifìc views ìn everyday polìtics. Irrespεctive of the timeconditioned nature of many of the solutions he proposed, his postion was marked a如，ve all by a prìncipled openness in re1 ation to alternative solutions taking account of new political or social developments. Weber believed, from the perspective of a position which was decidedly 1iberal and nationalist, that it would be necessary to sustain highly di fIering models of action and difl告rent political st主ategies in order to counter the secular trend towards the petrifìcarion of 丘ee society in routine, mediocrity and general mise巧. It was the task of the politician to sεcure the condirions under which creative social action could still remain possible. It was the task of science to provide the knowle

Max Weber's Theory of Legitimacy Today

By the early 1960s rnany social scienrists assurned 也at the tradirional.pólirical ideologies of the nineteenth century had lost their rnornenturn in the advanced industrial soci创岱 of the West. Ernstτopitsch argued 出at a new e主a in the history of rnankind was about to begin i Ì1 which polirics would 泣。 longer be deterrnined by holistic philosophies and rneta-scientific ideologies. Karl Popper's farnous book The Open Society and íts Enemíes appeared to have decided 出e case 在伊拉1St the fundarnent:在list ideologies of the nineteenth centu巧， in parricular the varieti岱 of Marxisrn, once and for alL Dat王iel Bell heralded the 'end of ideology飞It appeared that in the dernocraric socieries of the West a genera1 consensus had been reached about the principles of political rule; in future polirical and social problerns ought to be open for solurion 问r the rarional techniques of the ernpirica1 social sciences. 'Piecerneal engineering', not wholes a1e reconstrucrion according to grand schernes or ideological blueprints, seerned to be the orde宫。f the day. In the light of such assurnprions the t立在dι tional problern of the legirirnacy of the political ord盯 had receded into the background while pracrical issues had rnoved to the fore仕ont. However, a nurn怡主 of scholars strongly 0向jected to this trend of opinion, in parricular Jürgen Haberrnas. H站在rnas argued that the 、cienrificarion' of the polirical proc部队 as it were, would lead to a crisis oflegitirnacy of the polirical systerns in the advanced industri址 societies of the West. It goes without saying that the twin forces ofbureaucracy and science had indeed altered the character of polirical decision-rnaking. The increasing trend of ascertaining political issues in pragrnaric rather than in idωlogical terrns on the assurnprion 也at in principle at least they could be resolved sarisfactorily with scienrincally designed social technology was seen by Haberrnas as neces部与 leading to a weakening of the dernocraric consensus. 丁he decline of rneaningful id∞logical

Max Weber's Theory 吃fLegítímacy Today

4S

orientarions, which, as he admitted , w在s a corollarγof the decline of qadirional polirical philosophies, would backfire in the end. In advanced Western socieries the state had ce在sed to be a meaningful enri句， other th在n as a guarantor of increasing prosperity and social security for al l. The advance of bureaucraric modes of decision-making, and the increasing reliance of parries and governments alike on scienrific experrise of diverse sorts, amounted to a pseudodepo1iricizarion of polirics. 丁he process of polirical decision-making gradually evolved into a mere tεchnical 在ffair which the indìvidual cirizen had no chance of effecrively influencing one way or the other. Ha七ermas predicted that when the period of steady economic growth came to an end , faced wi出 incm$i吨 economic difficulries , a crisis ofbeliefin the legirimacy oflate c在pitalist society and its governmental system was likely. 丁he gradual weakening of the 盯在dι rional polirical consensus would become a serious problem. To p挝 it another way，在dvanced industrial socieries were progressively losing their legirimacy. Today it can be seen that none of these predicrions, neither those of empiri屿 cal social science nor those of the 玩ankfurt School, rurned out to be true. There has been no ‘ end of ideology'; rather we have experienced a new upsurge of idωlogical polirics, not just outside 卫urope， most noriceably in the 丁hird World , but also in Europe itse坯布旷srudent revol t' of the late 1960s, which wasveη， much an ideological phenomenon, blew over rather quickly, but with it the idea of polirics as some sort of sublime form of social technology also went by the board. 丁he worldwide recession, c在used or perhaps only accenruated 句f the first oil crisis in the 1970S (which rnight also be described as a crisis caused by a loss of unrestricted control on the part of powerful Western mulrinationals), left governments unprepared and helpless. 丁he econornic policies of Keynesianism (or what w剖也ought 协七e Keynesianism) failed dismally and exposed the limits of governmental power in the econornic 咛如何 in a rather spectacular way. This became all the more obvious in the last decade when some Western socieries experienced not only 挺ro but even negarive growth (something unheard of for many years) and unemployment rose to unprece-:dented levels. On the other hand, ideological polirics surfaced again even in the most advanced industrial societies in the West，路， for instanc

46

Politics and Social Theory

stable, even with a high rate of unemploymen艺 which only a few years ago had been considerèd altogether unacceptable politicall}人 On theo出er hand there is undoubtedly a 飞Nidespread disillusionment with politics among the public. We can observe an increasing disaffection wi出 the institutions which dominate the political arena today and w且ich in a way have appropriated the state for themselves. τhese phenomena can be 'described rather well 七y Max Weber's sociological model of legitimate rule. He was the fìrst to poi挝 out that bureaucratization was both a necessary tool and a curse. Under modern conditions political success is possible only if the political1eader makes full use of 七uteaucratic techniques of government. On the other hand the 顶ridespread use of bureaucratic methods in order to create or retain pol国cal support is bound to create new hierarchical 阳uctures in politics; 0均 a few groups have any cha配。 of effectively influencing the process of political decisio扣makingw挝le the great m唱on可 is reduced to pla)1Î吨 amorepa如何 role. The advantage of formal-rational techniques of government was desccibed by Max Weber as indispens动le; however, a price had to be paid for this in the form of 'substantive irrationalities', for instance the loss of genuine participation by all citizens in the political process or the widening of the gap berween private and public life orientations. 丁he advantage of having overcome the holistic ideologies of the past was accompanied by a serious disadvantage. Instrumental-rational 也rms of social conduct were making headway everywhere, whil<: the spontaneity of 也e individual was su与 ected to severe restraints. The new technocratic procedures of politics left little room for individual creati垃句， unless the indi飞ridual was able to establish personal influence through bureaucratic techniques of mass control and by turning to plebiscitary or even charismatic modes of1 eadership. Weber's appeal for great politicalleaders who are supposed to invigorate stagnant politic在1 systems 衬 virtue of their strong personal charisma has been criticized from many 司uarters. lndeed, it remains to be seen whether the personallegitimacy of the politicalleader can be a permanent substitute for the 七eliefin the legitimacy of the political system as such, as Weber seems to have assumed at times. His sociological model of parliamentary democracy which he defìned

Max Weber's Theory 吃fLegiti附 cy Today

47

all historically possible forms of legirimate government. Thìs is to say 出at all empirical cases of legirim在te rule are combinarions of these three essenrial sources of legitimacy (or rather belief in the legitimacy of government, to use Weber's own rather pedanric phra叫. None of these ‘ pure types' is to be found in empirical reality; 也eyare 出eorerical constructs which were designed in this way s。在s to represent three substanrially different sources of legirimacy as clearly as possible. Charismaric legirimacy, to begin with, depends enri纪ly on the readiness of the charismaric leader's followεrs to accept the ideals whïch that leader represents and the orders derived from them as 油solutely binding. To puti艺 another way, charismaric legirirnacy as such originates in 出epersonal­ ity of the leader. However, once a c且在ismaric authority ìs esta斟ished it is transferred to the leader's followers. Tradirionallegirimacy can be described as the routinizarion of charismaric authority, it rests upon the belief that what has always been is legirimate. That is to say,‘prescriprion' decides the issue of whether a parricular polirical authority is conside主ed legìrim在衍， not substanrive principles of some 主ind， such as the 'rights of man'. Legallegirirnacy (which is the most common of all) depends on the be1ief that everything that 均s 七een enacted in accordance with established procedures may be considered legirim在te. There may be cases in which value嗣…rarional beliefs pro飞IÎde support for certain forms of polirical rule. However, according to Wεber， this was not specifìc to legal rule. On the contrary, the purely formal procedures according to which mles are enacted and po坦tical decisions re在ched are, in his view, the ve町 foundarions on which the legìrimacy of a polirical system rests. As long as polirical rule is conducted according to procedures and regularions considered legitimate by the public, no decision arrived at in such a manner will be con叩 sidered unlawful, however outrageous it may be in terms of a substanrive moral standard. This may seem to be fairly far-岳tched， but it illustrates a very important aspect of legìrimacy through ‘ legality' under modern condirions of government 句 means ofbureaucraric techniques. 丁he Holocaust ßÚght never have occurred if those involved in it had not believed 出at 也e individual measures which made its implement在rion possible were 岛rmally correct. Accordingly, th

48

Politícs and Social Theory

effectively to evaluate its actions according to political or moral standar巾. This 1S 出e gist of Weber's argument that under modern conditions governmental legitimacy as a rule depends solely on ‘ the beHef in the formallegitimacy of enacted rules and the right of those elevated to governmental offìces to exercise power acωrding to these rules'. 寸hese rules may be esta出shed 七yagreement or imposition, on grounds of expediency or valu rationality or both' - that 怒， specifìc value-attitudes may provide a justifìcation for these rules. Yet this is by no means necessarily the case. On the contra巧 Weber emphasized that the former usually prevails, namely the enactrnent of law according to mere expediency or, as he has put it, according to the principles of instrumental rationali可- that is , without regard to valu rational principles of whatever sort. This is not exclusively but nevertheless predominantly the case. This type of legal government is typical of all modern industri在1 societies. Indeed, most people are pr守在red to assign legitimacy to establìshed authority so long as it conforms to the lett衍 of the law and keeps itself within the established procedutes. The highly bureaucratized nature of modern government makes it dif双1沈e .阳 缸 ental 筑 a ctions ar挝 e fìcult for the citizens to judge for themselves whether governm le 咆 g1怡Z狡1始踹在t优 e 例 0r not 挝 as me 臼as础 ur陀 ed againsr value φφ伽刷伽恬. 岱 协 b u附 z衍 r臼 eaau 肌 1比 cr归 挝缸 a Ei比c go 仰 ve 础主岱E汩 n口 mmenti必$ 在矶 nd 由 the ε moηnore 挝 栩r忿衍柑 m E红noved the experience of ordinary people is from any actual exercise of power, the more likely it is that the system will be considered formally legitimate unless it embarks upon policies which deviate from normal expectations to a ve巧， great extent. However , what works in favour of the established order is not only the belief 出at formal legali巧f always legitimizes governmental actions, but also tradition. In fact, as Weber pointsou飞 the 祉lief in the legitimacy of an estab1ished order is strengthened in most cases 句r the fact that people have grown accustomed to it, and thereby assign legitim在cy to it on traditional grounds as well. This is not to say that only rule based on ‘presαiptio矿 is legitimate; on the contra巧， any syste.m of formally correct imposed or enacted laws may possess rational-legallegitimacy. but this i主 strengthened if the respective legal sys柑mis considered to be a customa可 one， or, as Webe

•

•

Max Weber's Theory ofLegitimacy Today

49

monly held to be valid; for instance, it is usually argued in terms of naturallaw that democratic government depends upon certain inalienable ￥ights of man\ Perhaps Weber went too far when he argued that bureaucratic domination, once it has been fìrmly established, ìs almost indestructible; on these grounds , in his 飞lÌew， revolutions are extremely unlikely to succeed. But his 0七servations 油out formal-legallegitimacy remain valid all the same. Legitimate dornination does allow for soci在1 change so long as government keeps within i怆 confìnes of what is customary, for otherwise its legitimacy may be negatively affected. However，由ere is always a danger that establ必hed political systems will become ‘leaderles矿 and stagnant. Under such circumstances charismatic revolutions may occur to break the deadlock, a1 though under modern conditions this has become rather less likely thal1 in earlier periods ofhistory. The modern bureaucratic state, provided it is governed in accordance wi由 formally established legal rules , is 1ikely to et飞joy a substantial degree of legitimacy whatever it主 constitutiona1 structure. 丁his is true, to some degree at least, for non-democratic and 在u出oritarian forms of government as weU, including Marxist-Leninist governmental systems, althou拱出ey may be judged 在ccording to su七stantive principles , notably the principle of indi飞ridual libe盯y. 丁his explains the remarkable stability of most governments in the present world in face of the disaffection oflarge sections of the population with the existing order and growing discontent over its inability to deliver the ‘ econornic goods' which they have become accustomed to, namely prosperity and full employment. Yet one should not overestimate the degree of political stability derived from this state of aff主irs. Formal. .lega1 1egitimacy may not be strong enough to contain the forces of discontent which exist on 也e 臼nges of modern industri a1 society. Sooner or 1在ter they will demand a thoroughgoing reconstruction of 也.e social system on va1时-rational grounds, even though ‘charismatic 七reakthroughs' are unlikely to occur in the foreseeable futur巳 …

PARTII

Max Weber on Socialism and Political Radicalism

4

Capitalism and Socialism: 现Teber's Dialogue with Marx

The advance of modem industrial capitalism and consequent social developments are the dominant themes of Max W cb霄's sociological work. As early as 1893 , Web盯 predicted that, withín a f付 generations， capitalìsm would destroy all tradition击。und social structures, and that 出Ìs process was irreversible. He described modem capitalism as an essentially revolutiona巧岳阳e and believed that it was not possible to arrest，七y any means, its triumphal march. Much ofhis scholarly work was concemed with investigating 也e、 societal and cultural effects of industrial capitalism 岳。m 也e standpoint of their meaning for the fu ture of Western 1在eral societies. Consequently, it was inevitable that Max Weber would confront Ka rl Marx's analysis of modem capitalism and rus ideas about a future socialist society. Weber's sociology can be viewed as an 孟ttempt to formulate an altemative position standing in harmony wi由 rus own bourgeoÎs-liber:在1 ideals, but one that does not simply dismiss the sociaHst critique of 如urgeois society as being wi也out foundation. Weber belonged to a generation that stood midway between the generation of Marx and our own. His socio-political views were formed under the influence of the extraordinarily rapid growth of modern industrial capitalism in the last decades before 1914. The development of large industrial combinations, trusts and monopolies, all 可pical of a maturing capitalist system, took place 如fore his eyes, and he could not but note how 出is new reality con呻 flicted with classical polìtical economy's ìdeal image of capitalism. A1though Weber did not ignore these developments, he remained 出roughout rus life a passionate champion of a liberal brand of d严lamic capitalism. Weber was perhaps Marx's greatest theoretical opponent; given the range ofrus sociological work he has been righ t1 y called a 宅。urgeois Marx'.' Weber occasional与古战的d 时lÍmself as ‘ame础er of the bourgeois class'

54

Weber on Socialísm and Politícal Radicalism

whowas ‘ educated in their views and ideals '.2 In 1907 , in an argument about the lt飞泣l岱 est纪 εde 岱 xpr妃es岱sl与 y tha拭tRobe时r艺协 o Miche 叫 elss叮impl与 German Social Democr毒犯， her妃e吨〈龟守 yF r陀eg 织在rd him as a 毛与甘 cla 拙ss-c i豆ight 汉t of 骂!e 凸』祉 衍r'飞s cor挝 e 1药st怯磊I挝王双t 汉 s t白 r约lv 吐i怠g fo主 C主泣i 垃C辛注Iselιeαx在mination， to call him a 七ourgeOlStn 出e ordina巧rsenseof 也e word. Rather, to use his own terminology, he is better located in the intelligentsia, a social group th在 tc在nnot be assigned to any of the economic classes. Weber was less a ‘ bourgeois' than a liberal intellectual for whom 出e. auronomy of the individual was an indispensable principle, and it was from this perspect1ve that he approached the nature of capitaìism and MarxÎsm. As a result, Weber's attitude towards capita1ism as a total societal configurarion proved to be thoroughly ambivalent; this wi1l be shown in greater detail. Al though he vigorously defended the capitalist system against its cri柱。 on the left (whether 由ey were from the workers' movement or 丘。豁 出ose intellectu在ls whom he described as having succumbed to 吐le romanricism of the general strike' or to ‘ revolurionary hope'), he did not hesit在te to criricize the system's in知umancons吨uenc也 丁趾 starring-point ofWeber's 挡在lysis of modem capitalism was not as f羊r removed 台om Marx as Weber himself assumed. 日is concem for the preservarion of human dignity under the social conditions created by and typic a1 of mature capitalism (parricularly, the severe discip1ine of work and exclusion of all principles of personal ethical responsibility from industriallabour) is enrirely consistent with Marx's effort to find a way of overcoming the social alienarion of the proletariat under industrial capitalism. 4 日 ut Weber's sociological analyses of industrial socieries led him to conclusions that were, in many respects. opposed to those of Marx. It is hardly necessa巧 to point out that Weber always took Marx's theoretical work seriously. W出er labelled the Communist Man捞到o 'a pathetic propl肌y'. but 拭在e same ti血ε， despite his decidedly diÐ岳rent 飞riews， he considered it ‘a scholarly wo击。f the highest order'.s 荒duard Baumgarten reported that, in the last years of his 埠， Weber told one ofhis students: One can measure the integrity of a modern scholar, and espedally of a modern p且ilo­ sopher, hy how he sees 县is own relationship to Nietzsche and Marx. 留hoever does not admit that

Capitalism and S树ialism

55

fate of the indívidual ìs determined extensively by material 主nd economic factors and to a γery great degree ìs dependent upon anonymous socìo.呵 economic processes - an ínsight whìch is ultimately traceable to Marx..1 Nevertheless , ìt seems that in his early wrìrings Weber paid little attention to the original writings of Marx and Engels卢 Wefir址， however， an extensive trea ment of Marx and Marxism in his early lectures on national economics in Freiburg in the 1890s, but they seem not to have had a direct impact on his published work. Up to 1906 he referred primarily to vulgar Marxist inter甲 pretarions; direct references tO Marx were almost totally absent. During these years he con仕onted Marx and Marxism primarily in lùs methodologïcal wrirings. The妃， Weber distanced himself sharply and repeatedly from what was then called 毛始 torical materi过1sm\In principle, Weberr飞jected all material philosophìes ofhistorγ. He considered these and other approaches that claimed to discover objecrive historical 1在ws ozeven aa inner mmninzωhìstory ‘ch在rlatanism'Y From l-.is own standpoint, perhaps best characterized as a neo呻 Kanrianism combined wi由 Nie忽schea呼rincipl白， there could be ∞ objective ordering of the hìstorical process. In Weber's opinion thé Marxist 也eoηof history, which described historic在1 change as a determinate sequence of socìal formations with each characterized 七'y its respective mode of economic production and propelled 七y class conf1ict, lacked any scientific basis. For Weber, there were no objective laws of social reality. At best, it rnight 七e possìble, wi也 出e aid of ideal 句pes， toωnstruct law幽like theories of societal processes. These can serve as criteria for determining the degree to which certain segments of social reality depart 击。msuchnomol。在icaì models. Weber's radical position fo l1owed inevi哟ly from the fundamental prernise that history is meaningless in itself and that, at least from d沈阳ndpoìnt of a random observ饵， it appe在rs 剖 more or less chaotic. Only when speci茹c concepts ànd categories, formulated 岳om the perspective of ultimate cultural values，在re applied to a lirnited segment of reality (which 也 itself is limitless), does it become meaningful. Accordingly, Weber consìdered Marx's 由eo巧 about the succession of different modes of production to be no more than a sociologic在1 hypoth岱is that provides essential insights into the nature and development of modem industr

•

56

Weber on Socíalism and Polítícal 反adicalísm

their economic condirioning and ramific位ons is a scienrific principle of crearive fruitfulness , and, if applied carefully and free from dogmatic restricrions, wìll remain so for a long rime to come. However, the 军。-ca11ed ‘materialisric conceprion ofhistory' must be Z哈比叫 most empharic必y in so far as it 达 meant as a Weltanschauung or 在 forml出 for the causal explanarion of historical realìty." ln these remarks Weber did not differentiate between Marx and Marxist theo巧 in his own time. 12 Maíx's conception of a necessary and irreversible process, leading from feudalism to capitalism and eventual1y to socialism, was not a purely ontological statement; it was also a 出eOIγfor practical orientation , re守主iring human action to become 主eali可. Capitalist society comes into 如ing only through the actions of the bourgeoisie, and without a socialist revolurion carried out 坞r the proletariat there can be no socialist society.τhis activist element in Marx's theory was obscured 句 the later interpretations by Engels and , finally, Kautsky.13 It was they who tumed it into that rigid , mechanistic theory commonly cal1ed historical materia1ism. 气X1hen he wrote the above-quoted passages, Weber was apparently not fully aware of the substanrial differences 七etw悦n Marx's theo巧r and orthodox' Marxist interpretations in his 0'飞Ntl time, even thoug且 it would 在ppe在r that he discussed some of Marx's texts in his 创立ly academic lectures in 由e I890s. A careful comparison of their methodological procedures 14 shows that the two 由此ers were 在ctually not 在s anritherical as Weber himself claimed. Both Weber and Marx were concemed with extrapolaring certain seq平ences of causal chains of events 告。m the historic孟1 P主ocess. 丁。七e sure, unlike Mar叉， Weber emphasized that one could grasp only segments of social reality, never its totali可. Weber thought it impossi怡， indeed disho挝扰， to go beyond the construction of ideal 句pes: models 白at are used for describing parricul毒室 主istorical sequences and for analysing their social effects and human consequences. ln other words, from Weber's methodological perspect如e， claims about the 。同jectivity of the historical process were fictirious. lt Ìs 巾 comcl­ dence that he repe在tedly took offence at precìsely this element ofMarx's teachings. Weber considered this 飞lÌew of history to be false not only on epistemological grounds but also in principle，时， if one prefers, for ethical reasons highly 弓uest

Capitalísm and Socialism

57

precisely because they asserted persistently that wo r1 d history was on their side and that, therefore, the 飞rictory of socíalism over the bourgeois 飞ì\lorld was merely a quesrion of rime. 1ó Not only the liberal in We怡， but also the follower of Nietzsche, protested against such an orthodox variety of Marxism and vehemently 均ected socialism dressed in pseudo-scienrifìc ga出 which seemed to guarantee scìentifìc certainty of fìnal victo可. On the other hand，检 had 也c greates艺 respect for socialists who , regardless of the chances of success, fought for their ideals. For Weber, Marxism was accept在ble ìn only two 品m叫王) as a political theo巧 which， instead of invokì吨。飞jective scíentifìc trutl菇， prodaìms revolψ rionary struggle against the purportedly unjust social order on the basis of ethical convicrions 在nd without regard for 也e possi己le consequences for the individu址， or (斗 as 在 system of brilliant ideal-typic在1 hypotheses, which in themselves deserve closest attenrion from all sociologists and which are cap玲le ofsu七stantially advancíng kn9wledge of modern socíeries. A more detailed analysis of Weber's views of Mancism shows that Weber took exceprion, above all else, to the Marxist theo巧。f ‘superstructure飞 Weber never 在ccepted the thesis that all social phenomena could be explained sufficiently by relaring them to econornic causes: ‘ the common materialist view of history, that the "econornic" is in some sense all "ultimate" in the chain of causario n, is in my esrimation totally worthless as a scientifìc statemen t.' 17 Weber ignored the fact that Marx and Engels's position on this matter was much more sophisticated. Weber held that social phenomena could not, even in the fìnal analys怒， be explained by econornic causes. However, he did not express an idealist counterposirion. Webe室's famous essays on The Pro阳tant Ethic and the Spir的fCapitalism are comm∞ly viewed as 在n attempt to prove that ìdealist, and especially religious, factors play an independent role in the historical process. In 1918 W出er presented the results of this study in a series oflectures at the Unìversity ofVienna under the title,‘A positive critique of the materialist 飞riew ofhisto可飞 However, he did 在is with thoroughly ambivalent feelings.18 胁 neve主 claimed that his ‘Protestant ethic' thesis completely answered the question of how and why indu媳妇1 capita1ism arose. 自e pointed out repeatedly that he uncovered only one group of factors among others that had con位ibuted to the r

58

W砖εr on socialism and Political Radicalism

permit otherwise户 In almost apocalyptic terms he argued that capitalism is forging the conditions for a new ‘ iron cage of serfdom\which humanity will have to occupy as soon as the current phase of dynamic economic growth has reached its naturàl limits. 21 In describing the capitalist system's almost mechanical domination of man , which in the long run threatens to become a modern form of slavery, Weber came close to Marx's conviction that capiralism is an inhuman social order that contains the propensity for 忧lf-destructiori. On the other han 川I叫 1 capitalist 可stem (which he endeavoured to define precisely using sociological methods) wi出 an objective developmenta1 1aw. The universal白his艺orical perspective of an approaching age of bureaucracy recurs repeatedly in Weber's sc弘olar1y wri位仅gs; however, it is never hypostatized ìnto an ontological statement of a philosophy ofhistory. Here, the decisive difference between Weber's and Marx's conceptions of hi筑。巧r becomes 0七，V10US. 审站le Marx, in H吃elian fashion，丘amed his analysis in an almost apodictically conceived theory of history (althoug主 partlywi也 po1itical intentions), for Weber eve句 holistic view ofthe histo必ω1 process had only a hypothetical quality, serving orientation but not understood by itself as true and immutable. Accordingly, Weber was only being consistent when he gave particular attention to those forces and tendencies which were counteracting this process and sought to discover the conditions under which these can display their optimal effectiveness. Weber's reaction to individual elements of Marxist 出e。可 also conforms to this fundamental attitude. He accepted the thesis that the material conditiùns of existence pervasively determine human action only as a nomological model for the definition of concrete social conduct与 but not as conceptu a1ized truth; and it was precisely the significant deviations from this model that he sought to establish. With respect to the role of material and particularly economic intere邸， Weberwas fundamenta l1y pluralistic. Weber 岛und th绽， even under industrial capitalism, development is not determined exclusive与与‘materÍal interests'. Al ongside their dynamics stand the dynamics of飞deal interests';22 cve巧 analysis must take 七oth sets of factors into accoun t. In his ess在ys on the Protestant ethic and later studies of wor1d reli主ions， Weber was abovεall intent upon demonstrating that ideal interests can initiate s

Capitalism and Socialism

S9

force that reshap出 a given social reality so as to con也rm with their ultimate values. Naturally, the actual resulrs of such individual actions are conditioned by the specific social situation. But the original motivation of action cannor 七c explained perfunctorily by referring to the social conditions, which significantly shape the eventual results. .This concept of social change, which is directed primarly towards valueoriented actions of individuals or groups, corresponds to Web町、 strictly individualistic thinking, and is, in princip栓， irreconcilable wi出 M在rxist theo巧­ Nevertheless, there is common ground between Weber and Marx (at least with the Philosophical Ma附cripts of 1844). In 在 brilliant essay, which still rank.s among the best ever written on 前eber， Karl Löwith has shown 也at both think.ers were concerned with the samé centr在1 problem: how a dignified human eXÍstence can be secured under 也e conditions of industrial sociε泞， However , the realization that Marx was concerned equal1y with the liberation of ‘ alienated man' was obscured, in Webe宜's earlier wo此，七y vulgar Marxist interpretations. 23 As a few scattered comments indicate, Weber doubted Marx's prognosis that, because of its inherent contradictions , the collapse of the capitalist system was inevitable. He believed that 出e pauperization theory, crisis theory and concentration 也eory were al1 unsound, and in 也is respect he agreed fully with contemporary critiques of Marxism. After a lon在 and uninterrupted rise in real wages, the pauperization theo巧， even in modified for m, was no longer tenable. Weber regarded the assumption that the transition to socialism would occur after a .series of constantly intensi马ring economic crises with a mixture of disdain and irony，在s can be garhered from his occasional polemical remarks about the ‘ so-called anarchy of production飞 which nevertheless produces tremendous ma优rial achievements. 24 Weber's lecture on ‘ Socialism' delivered to Austrian army officers in 191825 used arguments of then contemporary political economists (al幸。也ose of Eduard Bernstein) in pointing out the likelihood of increased capitalist 忧丛regulation 也Iough 出e formation of cartels, s严ldicates， and the like, which would reduce the intensi可 of recurrent economic crises.26 Specifìcal1y, Weber contradicted Marx's view thar fur白.er c磊pitalist development would cause an ine飞ritable polarization between 也.e bourgeoisie

60

Weber on Socialism and Political Radicalism

the German political and social system, which denied workers political equality just as it denied them recognition as social partners of the en盯preneurs. Thus Weber repeatedly castigated the patriarchalism ofGerman entrepreneurs, who could not free themselves 丘om the authoritarian attitude towards their employees; he also considered them partially responsible for the radicalization of the workers产 Even so, Weber assumed that a socialist revolution was extremely improbable in his time. In his view, the Russian ‘ October Revolution' was a military revolt.veiled in socialist drapery.2 9 Quite apart from the question of the prospects for socalism, Weber rigorously disputed that the abolition of private appropriation of the means of produc∞n and the transition to a demand-orien时 economy (Beda侨deckungs­ wirtschafi), of whatever 可pe， would substantially improvc the lot of workers. Wcber believed that the separation of workers from the means of production, which Marx emphasized so strongly, was by no means limited to a social order based on private property. Rather, he considered it to be an essential precondition of all modern, highly developed societies, capitalist or otherwise. ‘It is', he argued ,‘a serious error to think that this separation of the worker from the tools ofhis trade is something peculiar to industry, especially to private industry. The basic state of affairs is unaltered when the person at the head of the machine is changed - when, for example, a state president or prime minister controls it instead of a private industrialist卢o On the contra町， the separation of workers from the means of production exists in state-directed socialism just as much as in capitalism. In both, an increasing divergence of formal ownership and managerial control becomes manifest, a split which Weber saw as a mark of advanced industrial systems and which, as we will see below, he took as the starting-point for an ideal-typical the。可 of social stratification 由at differs significantly from Marxist the。可· From the foregoing, it can be concluded 由at Weber was convinced that neither private appropriation nor the uneven distribution of property can be regarded as the essential causes of the alienation and deprivation of the working classes. The elimination of private control over the means of production leaves the fundamental problem untouched , name片， the su penon可 of those in dominant economic positions who exercise control over th

Capitalism and Socialísm

61

parriCl出句。f any rational守。职位ed socialìst economy, which would 化阶I

the expropriation of all workers and merely 七ring it to completion by εxpro­ priating the private owners.'31 However, this would mean a further strengthening and bureaucratizarion of the economy and, indirectly, of the social system. Socialization would not liberate workers; it would make 出em more dependent upon those who control the means of production. For workers it makes little difference whether the masters of the means of productioηare capita1ist entrepreneurs or managers or government officials with entrepreneurial duties. In contrast to Marx's expectation that socialism would eliminate the pro缸 motive， Weber soberly predicted that individual workers would conrinue to be concerned only with their constellation of per-… sonal interests, whatever the structure of the society. Weber aimed at demon叩 strating that nation在lization of production would lead only to a shift ofinter衍t positions, and it would certainly not eliminate ‘ the domination of man over man\Workers would be confronted with a new, still more powerful bureau阳 cr在呵， and one far harder to control , whose members one rnight well call , with Dj i1as ,‘the new class飞 Consequendy， any possibi1ityofimpro飞ring their concrete working and living conditions within the system would be further restricted. According to Webe玄， it made no basic difference wheth位 the transition to a socialist, planned. demand-oriented èconomy was achieved bya revolutionary or evolutionarγpath. Such a transition would considerably curtail the chances of attaining 在 maximum of freedom, however understood. In 1917 there w.部 much discussion in Germany abou艺 whether the forms of 也e wartime economy, with their high level of govemment control , should be maintained after the war and gradual1y turned into a socia1ist system. Weber protested p主ssionately against such suggestions. A progressive elimination of private capitalism is theoretically conceivable, alt益。ughit is surely not so 臼sy as imagined in the dreams of some literati who do not know what it is all 动。叭 its elimination will certainly not be a consequ号nce of this war. But let us assume that some time in the fumre it w过1 be done away with. What would be the practical result? 丁he destruction of the iron c在ge of modern industriall孟加时 No!The abolition of private capitalism 电i'lould simply mean 也at the top management of the nationalized or social时d enterprises would 如come bureaucratic as well. τ'his would endanger a 仕ee society's chances of sur飞巾al in an age of bureau响

cratization; for it is bureaucracy that poses 也e real 出reat to 主 humane society. Together with the inanirr时e machine it [i.e. b时eaucracy] is busy fabricating 出ecage of ser臼om which men will perhaps be 品rced to inhabit some d巧， as power1ess as the fella如 of ancient Egyp t. This might happen 扩 a 始chnically go饨， ì.e. a ratio回i

6二

Weber on Socialism and Political Radicalism

bu玄衍ea趴u剧εraric， 挝 admì血 z泣lÌ忿st往r主rion S邱 sole ωv，阳 们 P衍 'alωue

and pro￥只飞吮F放lS纣ion of 拮 sOCl喜址1 services were 勿 to in the ordering of 由t;且1祀ei让E 喜a fIa 缸 a公i盯 r岱S.3

衍 bet必 衍et纭 h ultim 稳苦at，化e

and

From a 川 tm 叩 旧iversal-historical perspective, Weber regarded the abolition of n private ownership with great scepticism. In his view , nationalization of the means of production is incapable of contributing to a solution of the most pressing pro七lem of our time. 在加 is the question how, in the face of ‘ omrupotent tendencies towards 七ureaucratization. . . some remnants of"indìvidualistic" freedom of movemen t' can still be rescued?33 Nationalization would make the situation still worse and oply lead to an increase in the power of runctionaries, not of workers. ‘ It is the dictatorship of the offici址， not t.汪红 ofthe worker, which, for the present at any rate, is on the advance.'3~ Yet VJeber distinguished himself radical1y from Marx not only in his estima呻 tion of the chances for eliminating the structural deficiendes of industrial capitalism 七ut also in his analysis of the nature of capitalist society. According to W伦衍， even mature capitalist societies are not as monolithically structured 豁 出e Marxist class model postulates. In principle he accepted the concepts ‘ class' and 'c1剖s struggle二 unlike many of his 七ourgeois contemporaries，七挝 he refused to assign them the dominant role that they play in Marx's theo巧， Weber believed that class interest ìn 出e Marxìst sense could 七e decisive in certain situations, but that 也is is not necessarily so. Only in extraordinary historical situations, according to Weber, are there collective class actions that conform unambiguously to this behavioural pattern, and even in such cases the population achieves nothing without the leadership of persons (normaIly intellectual母也担 otherclass能 Weber tersely 乓jected the so-cal1ed ‘ false class consdousness' solution of Georg Lukács, who held that segments of a class can be m燃aken concerning their actual class interests and that 也ese interests are established objectivel)人留eber considered this to be a pseudo-scientific strategy that obscured the key issues. 丁he

fact that people in the same class situarion regularly react ìn mass acrions to such tangible situarions as economic ones in the direcrion of those acrions wlùch are most ad吨uate 旬出.eir average interest is an important and simple fact a丘er al

Weber also r气jected Lukács's thesis because he was convinced that the social action of particular groups is never determined solely by economic interests. People do not always act in accordance with their objective class situation; they

Capitalism and Socíalism

63

are influenced by a mulritude of other factors as well , induding religious 快liefs ， tradirional modes ofbehaviour and parcicular values. 丁his means 也at， instead of dass, much more differentiated explanatory models of social acrion are necessary to deal with the complexiry of social relarions in industrial societies. Although Weber feared 出民 in the 10吨孔m， capitalism would become a rigidly monolithic and bureaucratic system of gigantic proportions , he was convinced, contrary to Marx, that capitalist societies are, in principle, pluralistically structured. Class conflicts play an essential role，七ut actual social developments depend on many other social factors , such as strong, dynamic leadership. Especially within complex industrial socieries, disrincrions between the individ ual's dass situarion and dass interests are generally not clear. This is reflected in the ideal-rypical schema of dass strarifìcation developed by Weber in Economy and Socíety , which di岳rs most signifìcantly from Marx's approach. 36 Instead of a single model of dass stratifìcarion, Weber developed three different models, each based on a different criterion: the disposirion of properry; ‘ the chance of urilizing goods and services in the market-place'; and the social st在tus of the respecrive soc站在，roups or strata. From these criteria, Weber disringuished between properry d郁郁， economic c1 asses and social classes. He did so to make clear that a dass situation, defìned as a set of shared interests of groups of individuals, is m在吗f喃layered and totally unequivocal only in the exceprional case. Weber also disringuished between properry classes and commercial classes because, in his view, their social interests are quite different. A sociery based 专 predominant1y on dass strarifìcarion according to properry tends to st唁nate， because the ‘ posirively pri飞rileged dass饵， are composed primarily of rentíers , who draw fìxed revenues 丘。m private properry. As a result, their central intere汉 is maintaining the status quo; they are 也reatened by rapid economic growth and strong econornic comperirion. 丁he ‘negatively privileged dasses' are, for the most part, either not 丘ee or direc t1y dependent upon their masters. Because the rentiers are not interested in sociakhange and the lower dasses are unable to alter their lot, class stratifìcation based on proper巧， is non-dynamic. However, this model is not ideally suited for describing cla

64

Weber on Socialism and Political Radicalism

possession of proper巧， but this is not necessarily so, particularly where hìghly specialized knowledge 在nd managerial skills are of increased importance. Here also Weber distinguished between positively and ne伊拉vely privileged cl部ses， while groups such as craftsmen and independent farmers stand between them. 丁he positive1 y privileged classes consist of entrepreneurs, managers and members of the various professions ‘ with sought-after expertise or privileged education' (吨. lawyers, scientists, physicians and arti叫， as wel1蹈， ln rare ωm highl持 y 生 s挝 killed wo 臼rkeεE罚s wl扭10 are not easily repμlacωeable. The bulk of workers comprise the negative1y privileged classes. 丁'his bipolar mode1 of dass stratifìcation, based on possession of property on the one hand and professional status on the other, is consistent wi也 recent dev e10pments in industrial societies; science and technology are daily 伊mmgm importance. Consequently the social status of those groups which supply the necessa叮 specialized knowledge nses in importance, while. the role of the formal proprietors of the means of production declines. What is the signi在 cance of this ideal酬typic孟1 schema? First, under advanced capitalism, formal possession of property is less important than what 引起ber calls ‘ the monopoliza呻 rion of entrepreneuri在1 manag'εment for the sake of the business interests' of one's own class.37 Second, the two mod e1s show that even within the ruli鸣 classes of industrial socieries' 也ere exists a great diversity of economic and political interests. Rentiers usually favour a stable economic system and, accordingly, are more likely to be polirically conservative. On the other hand, managers , fìlling important entrepreneurial positions, are supportive of dynamism and rapid growt礼 and therefore they are often more liberal in the让 polirical attitudes and mo主e flexible in thei主 social behaviour. Something similar can be said of workers. Weber concerned himself intensive1 y with the progressive diff位enriarion of status groups wit且in the working class, and he pointed out that Marx, in his last 严部队 also paid special attenrion to this issue只 Weber indicated that increasing differentiation would lead to corresponding differences in respect of economic interests and political 时ws. Accordi吨ly， he 也1ψt that the Marxist concept of class (i.e. that all social conflict is ultimate1y attributable to conflicts between capitalists and their

Capitalism and Socíalism

65

stran在cation that Weber developed, using social status as a stand时， is designed

to take account of this fact. weber distinguished 检tween four classes: (1) the working class; (2) the petry bourgeoisie; (3) the properryless intel1igentsia, hìghly qualified specialists and white-collar workers; and (斗‘the classes privileged through properry and education'.39 This classification is admittedly rather imprecise, but it ìndicates, none the less, that Weber made a clear distinction between class affiliation and socìal status and 出at he regarded them, to a certain degree , as independent variables. At 出is point, our observations on Max Weber not only as a criric but also as a student ofKarl Marx may be summarized as follows. Weber's 。向jections to the Marxist solurion to 出e problems ofindustrial capitalist sociery have been con呻 且rmed， in m毒ny respects, by the development of socialist system队 Today it is evident that eliminating private appropriation of the means of production does not solve the problems involved; it merely results in a displacement of the funda血ental conflict of interests, determined by the technological constraints of industrial producrion, on to a diffεrent plane. Nationalization may lead to a replacement of the social strata in control of the means of production, but not, however, to the elimination or even 也εalleviation of.the domination exercised by 也ose groups over the working class. The problem of establishing effective social control 丘。m the point of view and in 也e interests of the bulk of the population proves much harder to solve in Marxist-Leninist societies than in the capitalist West. Accordingly, one must agree with Weber that，如teadofthe particular form of ownership, the omnipotence of bureaucratic structures (unavoid动le as they are under modem industrial condition斗 represents the real cause of alienation in the world of industrial work and jeopardizes personal freedom.D均在ssionately Weber identified the crucial problem, namely that in socialism merely a new stratum ofbureaucratic m部tershadg在ined control. His scepticism about the claim that socialist sociery would gradually engender a new type of man has also been justified. 丁'he insight expressed ìn his theo咛 of the various types of class stratification - it is not properry ownership but ra也er the degree of control of 也e entrepreneurial function that 必 of decisive importance - has tumed oùt to be valid. The key Îssue, namely how a humane existence can

66

阵乍ber on socialísm and PoUtical Radicalism

still, workers henceforth would be su专Jec时加 the om国potent control of anonymous government bureaucracies. 丁hese would be far more powerful than a multitude of private entrepreneurs, who, among other things, always have to reckon with government intervention in the case of serious class con阳 市ω. 切记ile at pr饿时也e political and private industrial administrations (of cartels, banks and giant concerns) stand side by side as separate bod时， and therefore industrial power can still 检 curbed by political power, the two 主过 dm 吉刀1血 1 m拙$汉t 玄拮atior邵 i溢swoul 过ld 舌岳le 扭 n be one body 飞wit出 i革1 commonl如泯眩t饺 挝E窍 e 部$燃 e t岱sa梳 I狡1过 d could 孜 110 longe 时r be cl且lecked.'吨4 We 呻 b盯 faced 出 tll且l1S pr主O 呻 blemη10 ∞ na始 neven more 缸 nmd 也amental1evel. He doubted whether the humane ideals of socialism could ever be réalized. In a highly developed industrial society, full emancipation of workers from the yoke of the owners of the means of production was, in his opinion, unattainable. 41 This, of course, does not mean 白at he considered the social consequences of industrial capitalism, particularly with regard to the working class, to be in any way satisfactor予 Accordingly， he had gr岱t sympathy with po1itical movements that directed all their energies towards winning a maximum of social and political freedom for workers within a 1i各eral， market-oriented capitalist economy. Again the 哇uestion arises of how the sphere of individual personali可 could be affìrmed under capitalism and its great ally, modern bureaucracy，倍， in other words , how 也e long-term dehumanizing tendencies of modern industrialism might be cωount阳 e盯ra 肌 a削 ct时. At first glance , Weber's answer seems paradoxical. Starting 丘。m the conviction that there was no simple solution to this problem and that nationalization would only worsen the situation, he incI ined towards m达ing the best of the capitalist sys玩拇指出er than abolishing it.ρ Web盯 defended liberal capitalism because it guaranteed a maximum of 丘ee competition on both the economic and sociallevels. His ideal was an expanding capitalist system wi也 a high degree of social mobili巧 and dynamism; he thought 也is would permit the greatest possible emancipation of the wor挝吨 c1 asses. He considered two things vital: first, strengthening the dynamic factors within the capita1ist economy, rather than encouraging bureaucratization through socialist measures; and, second, creatin

Capitalism and Socialism

67

structures as typical forerunners of a bureaucratized economy. Weber never systematically discussed this contradiction. 的 1906， at the latest, Weber questioned whetl阳县is model 町 in which conflicts of interest between the working classes and entrepreneurs were freely fought out in trade-union struggles 叩 was not outdated in the face of the development of giant corporations and powerful employer organizations. He emphatically advocated suitable legislative measures to restore the equality of opportunity between the working dasses and 出eir unìons and the entrepreneurs in their continual struggle over wages and working conditions. Of course, the free, spontaneous action of the working classes should be encumbered with the fewest 岳tters possible. Therefore, Webe主 would hear nothing of governmentally established consolidated unions or of arbitratÎon bodies on which government offìcials would be represented. Likewise, Weber strongly supported progressive sociallegislation; this was not to serve ethical or moral ends, but rather during a period of growing entrepreneurial power it was supposed to improve the position of the working classes in their battle with entrepreneurs.44 丁hese observations could be generalized: the state should be, in some measure, a corrective to bureaucratization and petrifìcation of the social fabric. 丁his was one of the reasons why Weber emphasized so strongly the need for dynamic, future阳oriented leadership and an effective system for the selection of 弓ualifìed political leaders. It is open to question whether, under advanced C主pitalism， Weber would have favoured a liberal or interventionist economic policy, or, to put it blundy: would he have given preference to Ke严部 or Friedman? We c喜n fìnd support for both views. ln principle, Weber favoured the liberal model of freely contested conflicts within 也e co吐Ìnes of the rule of law. Yet, where the preconditions for this were imperilled, he did not hesitate to assign the state the task of intervening with 在ppropriate corrective measures. Moreover, in Weber's 飞机w， as the political organization of society the state can be a source of dynamic economic growth and consequently of increased social mobi起町， though only by indirect means. Resolute and farsighted politicians in top government positions are able, owing to their charismatic 电ualities， to set new go a1s for society and thereby counter routinization and petrifìcation. 丁his is

68

Weber on Socialism and Po /i tical Radicalism

conceptual alternarive to Marxism appear vulnera法. Certainly，冒出er was quite clear that one could not simply grant the state the funcrion of a neutral agency in the conflicts of social interests within indus伎ial society. His battle against Schmoller's policies in the Verein für Sozialpolirik was directed primarily towards destroying the illusion that the state could ever stand above the social classes. Occasionally Weber made this explicit. 45 In his view, it was important to organize the governmental system in such a way that all social st主ata and grou庐， aided 问r plebiscitary leaders who have 由e people's confidence , could achieve a due share in polirical decisions. Weber did not doubt that, through their leaders, the working dasses were capable of exerring a definirive influence upon the control of the governmental àpparat邸， there坊 improving their social situarion by political means. Aside from this , there is the quesrion whether the state possesses a posirion of independent leadership as regards economic forces. In this respect Weber never clearly arriculated his opinion. In principle he did not disringuish betw~en the state and the various social or economic insriturions of society. To them essenrially the same sociological terms applied. Yet he be1ieved the state to be superior to 出ese other insriturions because of its speciallegal privileges, in parricular the right to employ physical 飞riolence; and it w战 moreover， organized basically as an ‘ autocephalous' insriturion.τhe state ought to exercise its independent authori句， particularly with r岱pect to 也.e economic sphere; instead of being constantly infl阳lced by economic interests, it was, on 出 ωntra巧， supposed to inf1 uence economic acriviries and dictate their polirical 伊rameters.

Starring from these prewjs础，冒出er looked primarily to the po1irical realm , rather than to profound cha吨es of the capitalist economy, f与r a solurion to the structural pro七lems firs艺 addressed by Marx. In t韬s connecrion Weber's advocacy of plebiscitary ‘ leader democracy', with a charismaric element, deserves special notice (something to which Herbert Marcuse has alre在dydrawn attenrion , although, in my estimation, accompanied with an unacceptable interpreta∞n)产 A formally democratic po 1itical system, led by far-sighted , ene主geric and skilled po1iticians with demagogic qualiries, favoured a high degree of socìal m命ility. CoIlsequently, this system had indirect emancipatory effects upon the lov

Capitalísm and Socialism

69

Weber understood 白at there are possible soci在list systems 出at would minimize the domina∞n of workers 均 those controlli吨 the means of pro叩 duction , for example, throu恶如 extreme decentralizatìon of economic organization and worker participation in man在gement. Yet he believed that this could 七e achieved only under conditions that would have to do without both 也c regulatorγmechanism of economic competition in 出e market-place and the money economy. Thus the cost of realizing certain socialist ideals would be a considerable reduction of formal rationality巳Al thou拉 Weber considered a vane叩 of possible 巧'pes of socialìst societies, he assumed 叩 and， so far , existing socialist systems have proved him righ,t - that 主 socialist economy could survive only as a centraliz叶， state-operated system. State soci革list economic organization, with its powerful bureaucratic machinery to control production, distribution and management, had , in Weber's view, obvious disadvantages 咄en compared to the capitalist mark仅 economy (Verkehrswi阳主拼). 111 Economy and Society Weber treated this problem in an idea1-tyrpical schema. In a sense it was his last word on the rela叫 tion between capitalism 在nd socialism户 Weber contrasted the market econ相 omy 飞NÌth the planned economy. Al though he expl.ained clearly that it could not be determined on scientifìc grounds which of the two systems ought to be given preference, it is obvious that Weber believed market economìes to be more effective. Socìalist economic systems would have to cope with a considera七le reduction in 如 formal accountability (Rechenhafi曾是eít) of the production and distribution system , especia11y if they broke with the capitalist practice of market-oriented pricing. Althoug且'lIeber expressed himself very carefully, his 在rgument nevertheless retumed again and again to the thesis that capitalism was infìnìtely superior to a11 known economic systems because it alone was cap呻 able ofrationalizing a11 economic operations on a purely formal 部部. If one chooses the standard of highest achievement as the criterion for judging the market economy against the planned economy, the former is far superior. i孜 cont忧 r在踹椒$沉tt如 os盼 omer衍ec 臼ent neo-Marxist int优er哼 pr祀州 机t阳ati e ∞ ons， Web 快 岱室 wa剖s Íl孜1山 e E往lowa ∞ 咛 y inclined 沁 tO 吨 glo 州 崎 n i马如 F咫ca哼 pl硝sm 汛， andc础 挝rtai e mum of f(岛orrrαm nal 双 址1 rational垃it咛 Y白 1na 址11 盯 it岱s social dimensions. Closer analysis reve

1

'Consta挝 struggle between autonomous groups in the market-place';

2

the rational calculation of prices under conditions of unrestricted com呻 petition in the market-place;

70

另乍 ber on Socialísm

and Po /i tícal Radícalism

3 ‘ formally free labour' (i.e. work p衍formed on the 七asis of 丘eely contracted wage 在greements， as distinct from fixed salaries or the like); 4 ‘ expropriation from workers of the means of production'; S private ownership of the means of production户 丁he m气jority

of these conditions were no longer sufficiently met under the advanced capitalism ofWeber's time (assumi吨. for the moment, that they had been present in early capitalism, which app在rently served as We七位's model). Was he then desc品ing a ghost mat already belonged to the past? Such a question fails to grasp the core of the issue. Weber intended to describe the specifics of capit在lism in its pure form (a procedure which had methodological 1 similarities to Marx). Th双邸 dismissed 在龄sat也 h飞主rowback 臼 to Manchester liberalism. As already mentioned , he conceded, indeed emphatically advocated, that under certain conditions deviations from me pure form of capitalist market economy would be necessary … deviations effected through appropriate state interventions and in some cases through a change in the legal and political parameters of economic activity. In a way, Weber anticipated the neo-liberalism of the 1950s. In fact, he ini1 uenced its leading exponents (e.g. Friedrich Hayek, Hannah Arendt and Al丘edMüller­ Armack) to a considerable extent. By stre创吨如mal rationali可 as its basic characteristic，飞'"eber never intended to immunize modern industrial capitalism against criticism, as Herbe室主 Marcuse and Wol电a鸣Lefevre attempted to demonstra祀50 Weber did not intend to elevate cωap 抖it目 tálism onto 臼 tolog 耍lCα在 lly 马忡 yand 出 thereb 问均 YJ扣 u 削st 挝t崎 i让t ideological 过11与 y， as Marcuse claimed. Marcu妃's argument mat Weber's emphasis on the formal rationality of al1 capitalist operations obscured capitalism's substantive irrationality is quite misleading. Weber discussed this very point repeatedly in Economy and Socíety , although not always without ambiguity.51 Weber distinguished explicit1y between formal and subst在ntive rationality, though perhaps not as consistent1y as the issue demanded. He was fu l1y aware of the fac主 that a maximum of formal rationality was inseparably linked with substantive irrationalities, for example,‘the submission of workers 抬出e domin就ion of entrepreneurs'.52 Likewise he never obscured the true nature of 'formally free la七our contracts二 whic坠在re fundamental to capitalis血; he descrìbed them neutrally as a spedal form of domination. Weber proceeded from the premise 也在t under the conditions of mature capitalism formal rationality and substantive rationality are always in conflict with each other, just as in other economic systems; it depended on the concrete s

Capitalism and Soâalism

71

of capítalism, a critique whích rated substantive value-positions, regardless of their sort, more highly than thεformal rationality of the system. He pleaded for practical measures of social reform rather than for radical remedies which would lead to the destruction of the capitalist market economy. He warned , however, that the implementation of substantive principles would bring 在n inevitable reduction in the efficiency and productivi町 of the economic system, or, to put it otherwise, they could be had only at a price. Proceeding from concrete substantive value-positions, he indicated that a large num七er of critical alternatives to 出e capitalist system were conceivable but in each case some reduction of the formal e出ciency of the economic system must be accepted as part of the bargain - an argument he used occasionally 吃ainst Roberto Michels. 53 丁he manifestly dogmatic point in Weber's position was his nearly 如 undless confìdence in bo出 the formally rationalizing effect of the economic struggle between competing groups in the market and , in a broader sen忧， the competirion of polirical groups within society. The typological dichotomy of the market economy on the one hand and dìι ferent forms of soci在ìist planned econornies on the other was by no means an apology for industrial c咿talism. Weber did notaím to refute the socialísts and Marxists wíth 出is extremely formal 勾rpology. Ra ther, his goal was to provide a value-岳ee clarifìcation of the 主especrive social costs and conse气 uences that the two opposing systems unavoidably generate. Thus he stated: ‘丁汝 purpose of the diωsion has been to d附加ne the oprimal preωldirions for the formal rarionality of economic acriviry and its relation to the various 可pes of substantive "demands" of whatever sort'54 Weber wíshed to make perfectly clear that devi就ions from the pure 可pe of market可oriented comperirion in capitalist economy entail a necessary reducrion in the 品rmal rationality of the enrire system 0 1', in other words, a dirninurion of its economic efficiency. Weber was certain that none of the conceivable theoretical models of ideal economic systems could be translated into social rea1ity wíthout compromising at least some of the aims and values which th巧r were intended to serve. According to his position, it was , in principle, impossible to deterrnine the best economic system. Moreover,‘substanrive and formal (in the sense of 然actly calculated) rarionaliry', as he pu

72

L号乍 ber on Socíalìsm

and Politícal Radicalism

岛reseeable future constant compromìses between the principle of formal

rationality and su七stantive value-principles seemed to be the only humane solution. It should be evident why Weber never ideaHzed capitalism, 政hough he decided unequivocally in its favou玄. One the one hand, he was an enthusiastic partisan of capitalism 部 an economic system sustained by bourgeois values and as a source of ratÌonal social conduct largely experienced as binding; further呻 more, he supported it 主s a system with a maximum of economic dynamism and social mobility. On the other hand, he was dεeply concerned 埠。u t the ultimate SOCI0叩political consequences of capitalism, which, in the long ru n., would inevit在ly undermine dignified human life founded on the principle of the 岳ee， autonomous personality. The cool and m在tter忡。f-fact analysis of modern industrial capitalism in Economy and Society corr岱ponds to this perspective. lndeed, Weber did not hide the defects of capitalism, yet 扫除 view there was no workable 在lternative. Despite the high re伊rd he had for the motives of sincere socialis ts, he 沁 εedi到 d not believe 白 th沈 eMa 缸主血 xist 沉tpres 臼sc岱 丘 tlp 抖艺 tion 盯 1江卢.could solve the real problems of modern Western society. Despite all of capitalism's shortconüngs, he preferred it to eve可 conceivable form of socialist economy. He was con蛐 vinced that socialists, in so far as they wished to be serious about realizing their moral principles, would either have to accept a considerable regression in both technology and civilization or else be compelled to crωte gigantic bureaucracies in the face of which the people, induding the workεrs， would be un在le to accomplish anything. Compared to any form of socialism, c咛ita1ism appeared to offer far better conditions for the survival offree societies in the age ofbure附cracy.

Following 出is basic conviction, Weber spoke out consistently for the preservation of the capita1ist system in the last years of the First Wo r1 d War and especially during the Revolution of 1918-19 in Germany. As early aS 1916 he 飞rigorously defe放ded entrepreneurs against the mounting criticism of capitalIsm. 丁he war could never have been waged so successfully without 也err sεrvices， and even in the post-war years it was necessa巧r to retain the motto: no curt幻lment of entr守reneurial 主ctivity but ‘ more capital, more c在pitalist activi可 and dynamism'. In this way the economic losse

Capitalism and Soâalism rions 住在 t only 在 free

73

dynamic entrepreneurial class could restore Germ在ny's economy. Yet neither on the political nor on the theoreticallevel did he consider the dialogue with socialism to be defìnitely c1 osed. He felt that the 在nal word on 出is issue had not yet been spoken. Earlier, in 19 口， he had planned to write an essay on Marxism for the Russian journal L吃gos which did not come a七out after all户 Now he intended to take up the topic again on a systematic leve l. For the summer term in 1920 at the University ofMunich he had planned to deliver a lecture course on ‘ Socialism' and had already started on 也iswhenhe died of pneumonia in June 1920.ωHad Weber been granted a longer 埠， he surely would not have further postponed that systematic tre在tment of Marxism, which we look for in vain in his work; he would have set it forth, wheth挝 in the ambitious Po /i tícal Soâol，号'y on which he was then working or as a separate inquiry. However, even in its present form, his sociologic过 work can be regarded as an alternarive to Marx's theo巧， onew头ich is on a par with the latter ln 加th breadth of vision and the rigour of its argument. Clearly, any evaluarion ofWeber's cririque of the Marxist idea should bear in mind thut he on1y lived through thεfìrst yεars of the Bolshevik regime and, there岛re， he lacked concrete experience of soci在list sys注ms.Reg在rdless of trus , his essenrial points are srill wort峙。f consideration. His thesis - that the distribution of property is not as important as the groups who control entrepreneurial positions 响 deserves special attention, as today's stagnaring communist 巧附rns demons在rate. 丁he abolition of private appropriarion of the means of production, under cert在in circumstances, may be the way of resol飞rmg the pressing problems of our rime, but it could also make 也ings worse. A modern theo巧。f socialism must, above all, be a七le to handle 由e problem of how economic decision且making can be effectively controlled 均 the people at large instead of falling Înto the hands of indecisive bureaucrats or new authoritarian elites. In this respect，飞"fJ eber's analyses deserve 在ttenrion even from those who do not share rus convictions. Weber presented no simple recipes for restructuring capitalist societies in order to end working-class alienation and exploitation, but at least he empha呻 s泣ed the crucial problerns. Thus we are thoroughly justifìed in calling him a liberal sociologist who matched 虹is great intel1ectual òpposite, Marx, in pro

Joining the Underdogs? Weber's Critique of the Social Democrats in Wilhelmine Germany

Max Weber's views about the character and role of the German Social Democratic Par可 in Wilhelmine Germany are of considerable interest in many resp优ts. He considered the Social Democratic Party to be one of the most advanced examples of a bureaucratic mass party of the 巧pe which in his opinion was 功。ut to become dominant in modern parliamen艺ary government. More ir豆豆portantly， he was interested in the Social Democratsas a politic嘉1 party which had tied its political fortunes to 在 consider边le degree to the Marxist theory of historical materialism. But paramount in his views about the Social Democrats were considerations regarding the concrete role they played within W i1helmine politics. Above all he concentrated on one Îssue , namely whether the policiesof the Soci在1 Democrats were like与 to promote or retard a democratization of the political sys优m. In his opinion the middle classes and the working classes ought to operate jointly in 也e political arena in order to put an end to the rule of the aristocracy and its fellow travel1ers within the governmental bureaucracy. Weber considered this to be necessary not only because he believed in the superior qualities of democracy but 在Iso for nationalist rεasons; only 柏 Imperial Germany whose policies enjoyed the fu l1 support of a]] sections of society including the working classes would be 必le to play a m号。r role in future wor1 d politics. It 抬 出IS 飞riewpoint which was paramount in Weber's assessment of the German Social Democrats. It should be noted to begin with that Weber never hesitated to declare that his own 由ws were conditioned not le割 by his ow咛ers棚1 class status; he repeatedly stated that he was a member of the bourgeois止， even in the literal sense of this term, since his wife Marianne drew on income from her co由

]oining t占e Underdogs?

75

ownership of a small fami]y owned textile m il1 in Westphalìa. J None the le岱 his views on M在rx and M在rxism were perhaps never quite as biased as he himself was ready to admit, as w在s shown above in some detail: though a radìcal critic of 如Iarxism， his own sociology was in no small degree developed in a perpetual intellectual debate 飞iVÎth Karl Marx and his theories. 2 Indeed. 1 have already demonstrated 出at Weber integrated important elements of Marx's theories Ìnto his own ‘interpretative sociology'.丁he ideal咛pical assεssment of the capitalist system in its pure 岛rm which we fìnd ín Economy and Socíe号， in many ways parallels Marx's own analysis half a centu咛 earlier. The ‘ formal rationali町· of fully developed capitalism is no艺 all that far removed from Marx's notion of the ‘ alienation' of the workers as a result of their disappropriation of the means of production. Weber described just as Marx did , and in a similar language, the su飞jection of workers to a strict discipline of work in the factory. W òrk contracts entered into on the basis of the principle of ‘ formally free labour' are, according to Weber, tantamount to subjection to the domination of entrepreneurs. 丁he modern industrial system is based just as much as older socio-polirical syst'εms - and possibly even to a larger degree - on the 吐omination of man over man', and the fact that it is 岛rm在lly based upon 仕ee decisions in the market-place rather than on any kind of forced labour does not make it less so. These few remarks may indicate that a large area of consensus is to be found in the theoretical thought of Marx and Weber. as far as their assessment of the nature of the modern industrial system is concerned. However, while there are S伎iki吨 similarities in their diagnosis of the evils of capitalism, Weber did not in the least consider Marx's suggestions for how to cure these evi]s to be valid. In his opinion, they were neither theoretically sound nor a suitable programme for practical po1itical activity in advanced industrial societies. On the other hand, Weber was prepared to pay tribute to Marxism in its original form as propagated by Marx from 1847 onwards as a heroic, albeit utopian creed which in 也e first place had helped the working dass 臼 esta时ish 出elf as an independent political force ìn a society which utter1y 尺jected workers' daims to a fair share of the social produCt and to a decent 挂.vi吨. Weber considered the Communist Manifesto aS ，well 豁出e so-called Katastrophentheorie , which predicted an inevi ab

•

76

Weber on Socialism and POlítica1 Radicalísm

be swept to victory by the automatic operarion of the laws of economic developmen t. In his view socialìst ideology had become a mere rirual of abuse directed at all the social instirurions within capitalist socie可， which were summarily dismissed as bourgeois without any serious attempt to assess their true nature. In other words , what in the ea r1y days had been a heroic creed had 扯come mere1y radical rhetoric devoid of any rational assessment of social Eεality. This refers of course in parricular to the Social Democrats ín imperial Germany. 丁o put it in a nuαhell: the Social Democrats had failed to get rid of the ideological modes of thought 句pIC址。f a polirical sect but enrirely unsuit必le for a poliric在1 party. 拮.ence th句 were incapable of facing up to p拮据nt-day reality. Accordingly t始y were unable and unwilling to work for the improvementofthew。此ers' loton t主e basis of a realisric assessment of exisring condi阳 tions. The opporruníties for movi吨 forward in specifìc areas by means of polirical alliances with the progr岱sive secrions of 也e bourgeoisie were 出ere­ fore ignored. Al ready in 比 inaugurallecrure of 1895 宙eber had ar萨ed， though char就畔 terisrical与硝 an 制de， that the German wo也gd础 waslnno w在y ready fo主 polirical leadership, however advanced it had becòme in economic terms: ‘Polirically the German working class is in6.nítely less marure than is m咄咄 tained by a clique ofjournalists who aspire to monopolize its lead时ship.'3 It was above al1 the lack of any sense of power which he considered the most critical de 6. ciency of the German working class, in marked conttas巳 as he pointed 0叽 to the Brirish and French working classes; in this respect he referred to the support given to Brirish imperialism by important secrions of the Brirish working class who allegedly fully understood the need for empirical and power polirics, whereas their German counterparts excel1ed in a docttinaire anri-coloníalism. For the leaders of the Social Democraric Party - 'those declassed bourgeois' - he felt little more than contempt: 'They are patheric experts in political ttiviali ty: 出町 lack the deep instinct for power that a class which is called upon to take ove主 the political1ead在ship in a socie可 ought to possess.叫 Since the turn of the cenrury 冒出er's imperialist èon飞ricrions were no longer aspow优ful a determining factor in his opiníon of the Social Democrats. But, in princìple, his views had changed little. In his opinion 由e Social Democraric Party had in no

]oíníng the Underdogs?

77

process of production and its imm在nent contradictions would dig capitalism's own grave. In his view this mental attitude was merely a variety of pettybourgeois thinking that was guided 油ove all by the idea to be on the winning side, come what may. 丁o put it bluntly, Social Democratic agitation amounted (0 merely a verbal radicalism whïch stood in sharp contrast to what may be termed the ‘ propaganda by deed' of anarchism. Between 1906 and 1909 Weber discussed these issues at considerable leI唱出 with Rob但to Michels, who had attracted his interest as a young scholar of remarkable gifts notably 七ecause he was a devoted lefιwing socialist with strong syndicalist leanings and a convert from a wealthy bourgeois family.呈 Weber took considerable interest in Michels's work on socíalism and socialist parties and it Ìs signifìcant that Michels published widely in the Archív.弄~rSozial­ wíssenschafi und Sozía争。litík ， although he could not at that time be considered as an established scholar. Michel骂's famous book Politícal Parties (which w在s based largely upon an analysis of the German Social Democrats) originated in a series of essays all of which had been published in the Archiv. Michels belonged to a dissident group of left-wing socia1ists in Marburg with moderate anarchist views; though a conv.i.nced socialist, he soon became a bitter critic of the German Social Democratic Party. 丁且1S m咛 be attributed partly to the f主ct that he felt ostrac泣edby 也epar句， being an intel1ectual from a bourgeois background. lndeed, Michels was never fu l1y at home with 出e German Social Democrats, even though he was a p在rty member until 1907. His own passionately moralist approach to socialism as an e出ical du町， w是ich was combined, as it were, with a deep响rooted belief in fundamentalist democratic principles, was not shared 句也e bulk of par巧r members. Neither were 且1S leanings towards anarchist thought well received in a party in which pragmatic views prevailed and in which solidarity was considered obligatory. Adrnittedly, Michels was a moral fundamentalist (Gesinnungsethiker) and a syndicalist rather than an ordinary socialist. Bo出 of these aspects of Michels's personality fascinated Max Weber.ln some ways he saw in Michels an alter 哩。 following pa出swhichhefo出ade himself to enter upon, but which 检 would none the less have liked to 创low. Hence a lifel吨，剖ymmetrical partn栩如p developed between the two men.6 W也 er's and Michels's initial assessm∞ts of 也e German Socia

78

另告 ber on Socíalism

and Political Radicalism

favour of 孟a ‘亏剖 r刘igl如 h汉圳 ti tist 钊t polic 北cy to 各祉e sω0... . 丁hesε gendemen don't frighten anyone 在 ny more. 7 With considerable acuteness Weber observed that under 出.e prevailing cor卜 ditions the German Social Democratic Party w在s not a polirical force that could be taken seriously. It、 was neither prepared to opt for a constructÌve reformist policy nor willing to embark upon genuine revolutionary struggle again汉 the estab1ished order, whatever its revolurionary rhetoric might sugges t. Thε Social Democrats might have found considerable support for a reformist policy among the progressive sections of the liberal parties.τh总 would ， howev段， h在ve required abandoning the policy of ‘the 陀volurionizing of minds'，由.at is to say, concentraring upon agitarion to paint a rosy picture of the sociali汉 revolution (0 come , while doing next to nothing toactually improve 出eworker矿 lot and not opring for a genuine revolution.ary strategy, as envisaged 磊t the rime by Rosa Luxemburg, for instance. Weber was appalled to see that 出e par可 was unable to agree on any realistic polirical strategy, and that the Social Democrats indulged instead in a mixture of selιpity and utopi在n expectation that the capitalist system would eventually col1apse virtually without their own help , resulting in a victory for socialism without a single shot having been fired. According to Weber 也is was utter nonsense. In his view there were only two strategies open to the Social Democrats: 1

2

A reformist strategy which should aim at attaining gradual reforms in social and constiturional matters. 丁'his would require putting an end to the meaningless reperition of ritualistic formulas about the socialist Endzíel 在n.al goal). Revolu rionary strugg拴在gainst the 岱ta七lished system with no holds barred and regardless of the immediate consequences for those engaged in it. 丁his was tantamount to a r.a dical gesinnungsethisch (moral fundamentalist) approach, which, though perhaps impracricable, was at least honest and straightforward.

In Weber's opinion there were no compromises possible between these two ultimately mutually exclusive strategies. lt goes without saying that，飞rvhile Weber respected the second alternative as 在 pl磊usible one for those who sincerely believed in socialist ideas , he himself was in favour of a reformist policy. Not surprisingly he sought to establish personal contacts with some leadin在‘revolutionists' like E

]oining the Underdogs?

79

working dass by increasì吨 working-c1 ass consciousness, We七er 0 向jected sharply. 旺e considered this attitude to be a crude piece of ‘success e出ics': ‘ Syndicalism is either an idle whim of inte l1ectuaJ romantics and something fo芷 础 u mdiscip 抖li血 ned wo玄ke盯玄岱s who are not willing to make a口y financiaJ sacrifice or else a Ge.臼 'sím 珩 d 仰 1刀仰 n切1 provides an ideal 岛r the fu口1tur时et出 hat is"飞at阳 t始al妇 na 油 ble ♂"\ In 双O 创th 阳 缸rw e 附 or叶础品出s ， in Weber's opinion it was not possìble to refute anarchism on scientific or ethical grounds. provided that those who sincerely believed in its tenets were fully prepared to act regardless of whether it might have disastrous cOllsequences for themselves. While he did not think such a heroic stance to be sensible，在nd advocated instead an evolutionary strategy, he fully respected those who thought that a genuine revolutiona巧r struggle for a society should be conducted under whatever circumstances. Seen from this vanta这e-point the Social Democrats did the worst possible thi吨. They 艺ried to avoid clear-cut decisions regarding the two policy options open to them. Instead they ìmmersed themselves and their fo l1 owers in a social. ist utopia, merely reiterating the traditional socialist liturgy according to which capitalism would meet its deserved death in dne course, whatever happened , 在nd that eventual1 y socialism would triumph. In fact this amounted to a quietist policy masked by ve出al radìcalism and revolutionary rhetoric. 丁his policy in effect forestalled any constitutional reforms in Imperial Germany, since under the prevailing circumstances the bourgeois parties felt obliged to unite against the Social Democrats. Weber pointed this out perhaps most effectively in his essay on 出.e Russian Revolution of 1905, written in 1906: …·

There is not a trace of plausibility in the view that the economic development of socie巧， as such, must nurture withîn it the development either ofinwardly ‘仕eer' personalities orofmo优、ltruistic' ideals. Do we find the slightest hint of anything of the sort in those who, in their opinion, are borne forward to inevitable victory 勾‘material development'? ‘ Correct' SociaJ Democrats drill the masses to perform a 50rt of spiritual goosen 吉 5吨. Instead of directing them towards the otherworldly paradise (whî 址ichi白 nPur出 ita肌 a出 m 垃 1lsm 1 also 妇o showε d re 岱sp 严εCαta必 ble 缸 achi 对iev!艺ment岱s on 七挝 εhal旺

80

即挂ber on Socialism

and Political Radicalism

In his analysis of rhe role of rhe Mensheviks during rhe R部lan 我.evolution of 1905 , he inserted some very unfavourable asides 动。"出eG位man Social Democrars: 'Their need to hur1 a基础 (at 主边命 hei 出i主 oppo邸 毒扭 nd， more importa挝ly stil1~ it 站在部 al1 changes 岛主出e better which might bring a七out a configuration ￥vhich would provide rhe opportunity to embark upon effective political action.'IO Nei白er Bebel nor Rosa Luxemburg escaped Weber's scathing cri位ism; he flady rejected the former's intelligence, while being sceptical about the latter's political judgement. At the meeting of the Verein für Sozialpolitik at Magdeburg in 1907 Weber summarized his diagnosÌs of rhe German Social Democrats as follows: ‘The party has lost all the revolutionary energies which it formerly possessed. Instead it has taken to m时e grumbling and complaining.'ll From such a political party, motivated as it was above al1 by selιpity‘ rhe bourgeoisie had nothing to fear whatsoever. In 1908 and 1909 Weber conducted an intensive debate with Robe室主O Michels 坊。ut parties and party organizations, and in pa出cular 边out the German Social Democratic Party. Michels, who was working at what was to become his famous 七ookon ‘ modem political parties二 bitterly criticized the Social Democratic Party for ha飞毛ng become an oligarchic organization which had efFective与 departed from rhe democratic path altogether. Weber took a radic在lly dif位rent line. He was not worried about the fact rhat the German Social Democratic Par可 was about to become a bureaucratic mass par可 much like the American party machines. In any case he thought it useless to criticize this development, which was apparently inevitable and irreversible, from the vantage-point of a fundamentalist position, as Michels had doneP Referring to Ostrogorski's studies on rhe Am erican political syste缸， Weber predicted that the German Social Democratic Party would tum into a ‘ ganz kommune Parteimaschine' - an ordinary party machine - in the Americari 忧郁e of the term. It would no longer be a threat to the 然isting social order. In due course it was 岛ound to become a pragmatic wo法ing-dass party pursuing reformist policies. 丁his assessment of 边e character of rhe Social Democr在tic Party in Imperial Germany was matched 与 contempt for bourgeois fears about the alleged ‘ Red Peril\Instead，习Veber pleaded again and again for the Social Democrats to be given a fair share ofinfluence and power in 出e political arena, whether in loc在1 govemment, in rhe

1;

二，

3jsjr

苦苦连

13

垂道部

]oining the Underdogs?

81

nature a legal offence. This was, in his view,‘ein Recht 岛r alte Weiber'飞 a law fit only for old women. Likewise he argued against the patriarchal rule of manage明 ment in the large plants ofheavy industry.D He would have nothing to do with the authoritarian attitude of many German entrepreneurs vis-à-vis their employees. He had much the same contempt for the unions which refused to affìliate and denied their solidarity with the rest. lnstead Weber pleaded strongly for a liberal system of industrial rcl剖ions in which the tr在de unions would be free to fight 岛r the economic and social interests of the workers as best they could, as was the case in Great Britain at the rime. Neit由 he 盯r did he favo飞u主 &盹税ys盹阳 e创mτ 双妇灿 1让1托.咱f 伍 i岳i让cial 刘 盯 arb 讪it饺ra剖r扫ion 怡 b oa盯古ds de臼SI结 gr时 1况ed to i岛与r优es沉tal 柑 llo 倪古 restrain st岱 rike 础s. It was the duty of the state to provide for a fair legal framework within which the unions and the entrepreneurs could conduct their stru锦le about wages and working condirions 丘om roughly equal star由19posi­ tions and wìthout outside interference. Weber considered that the offìcial government policy ofhampering the growth of trade呵unionism wherever po sible by all sorts o f1 egal and administrarive measu陀s would greatly impede the development of harmonious industrial relations in an advanced industrial society 1ike lmperial Germany. Late in 1912 Weber was acrively engaged in assembling a group of progres叩 sive academics interested in social reform. 14 He planned to launc且在 Social阳 politische Vereinigung outside 也e Verein für Socialpoli tik, since 出e latter was dominated by conservarive academics. This new association w描 to revive public interest in social reform and halt the tendency towards reducing or even scrapping parts of 也e social welf二re system which had come into being in the last decades. However，也is new venture did not get off the ground, largely becat如e a personal ri玩 developed between Max Weber and Lujo Brentano over the issue of whether Social Democrats should be asked to join 出is new academic association 丘。m 出e start or whether it should restrict itself for 也e time being to rallying support among bourgeois academics and politicians, as Weber thou阱t advisable for purely tactical reasons. This was all the more regrettable sìnce Weber had otherwise consistently denounced the discriminatìon against scholars holding socialist convictìons as was practised b

•

82

另'eber on Socialism

and Political Radicalism

certainly he would have welcomed a policy ranging ‘ from Bassermann to Bebel', as canvassed 坷 Friedrich Naumann in 1913, n在mely， the form础。nofa parliamentary coalition oLall progressive forces in German society ranging from the Social Democrats to the National Liberals. After the outbreak of 由e First World W:前暂eber became a staunch supporter of Reich Chancellor Bethm在nn 日。llweg's policy of ‘reorient就ion'， which proposed even申handed co-operation with the Social Democrats and envisaged constitutional reforms which would 础啡 the legitimate demands of the working cl在sses， though only after the end of the war. He welcomed the loyal attitude of the Social Democrats who rallied behind the government and joined the 0艺单位 classes in a common war effort, on the assu阪ption that this was a defensive war. Duri吨 the First W orld War Weber's 飞lÌews onthc Social Democratic 如何 mellowed a great deal; 如e tended to view their policies in 在 far more positive light than before, undoubtedly in f1 uenced by t单位 loyal support for the government headed 均 Bethmann Hollweg during the early years of the war. 丁he policýof 出e Social Democrats, or 在t any rate a large r口号。rity of the party, was largely motivated by 岳elings of nationalloyal巧， but also by the expectation that 也.e working classes would eventually be able to reap the benefits of this co阳 operation and become accepted as an essential part of the body politic. Weber was strongly in favour of a policy pl在cing the Social Democrats on an equal footing wi也 theo也er political parties rather than treating them as outca邸，路 had been official policy right up to July 1914. He thought it necessary to strengthen the 企agile parmership between the work:ing cI asses and the govemment which had developed as a consequence of the momentous events of 4 August 1914. Comparatively early on he recognized that the official policy of ‘ reorientation' did not go far enough, holdìng out vague promises of concessìons to the wor括ng classes after the war as a quíd pro quo for loyalty in matters related to the war eff优 By the spring of 1916 Weber became one of the most outspoken critics of the Prussian three-class system of suffrage, and he effectively supported the Social Democrats' increasìngly insistent demands for immediate el优toral reform. Weber's public campai俨 against the existing electoral system in Prussia culminated in an article in the Fran暂时r Zeítung late in 1917 in which he argued that , whatever else happened , su

]oining tlte Underd咆'5?

83

•

his determined opposition to fa reaching annexationist policies. Unlike the Social Democrats he dìd not oppose annexations on principle - in e在stern Europe he was in favour of establishing semi-autonomous nation叫states under the loosely defined overlordship of Imperial Germany. But he agreed with the Social Democrats 出at the war should 七e conducted as a defensive war and should not be carried on even a single day longer fo主 annexationist 0专jectives. He also 时 ected the policy of unrestrÍ cted submarine warfare which the German government had been considering since March 吟 16 and eventually declared inJanuary 1917 , thereby provoking the United States to join the Al lies as an active belligerent. In Weber's opinion the ent可 of the United States into the war ended all hopes for a speedy conclusion of a negotiated peace of whatever sort. He now no longer hesitated to co-operate directly with Social Democrats in order to counteract the extremist propaganda of the German Fatherland Party. On 5 November 1917 he spoke jointly with the Social Democratic deputy Wolfga吨 Heine - albeit a member of the 吨htwi吨。fthe party - during a public rally in Munich，‘五)r a peace of conciliation and against 白e danger of Pan阳Germanism\Trus rally had originally been scheduled for July 1917: 6 During the later years of the war Weber's confidence in the reliability of the Social Democrats in matters of national interest grew stωdily巳 On the occasion of the Stockholm Peace Conference which had bee川alled by 出eSecond International in May 1917，骂f起ebe盯r even ∞ cOI部 1移.51挝 de 缸red whe 曰the 盯r 垣 he shoulâ pe 盯r阳 $始 侃 O 汩a过 n 叫1岛片 of旺他伽 1坠际-古rhi 比s 喜豁$础a拍 ncαetωoSd趾 1比el近 de 岱z注 m 岱a Ge盯rma踹 nd 命ele 笃 ga叫 tion.Ev 咣 倪E狡1tu e 飞ua 过 all 丑ly hesug 锦 ge 臼s艺淤 ed 白t}且l监a挝t Scheidemann be accompanied

hy Dr Gutmann, one of his Russian friends. Admittedly Weber thereby hoped to bring his view 在cro豁出at 'if the German Social Democrats were to conclude a bad peace we 飞Nillhavethereactiona町 rule of the Pan-German.s after the war, and they [i点也e Social Democrats] willlose all influence.'17 This particular example reveals W出er's increasing concem 出at under the impact of the 丑ussian February Revolution the Social Democrats might drift fur出盯 and further to the left. His essays on the revolutionary events in Russia published inJanuary and February 1918 were ωa large exte挝 addressed to the Social Democrats in an attempt to immunÎze 出em against the revolutionar

84

Weber on Socialism and Political Radicalism

so the strikes of January 1918, even though he was himself furious a如 utthe outrageous manner in which the peace negotiations at Bres毛…-Li towsk had been conducted. On the othεr hand he had a great deal of sympathy for the strikers' motives. 自e even defended the conduct of the leaders of the Social Democratic Partyw单位 they joined the central strike committee in Ber1 in in J anuary 19 此， in defìance of the law. Al though 出ey thereby publicly demonstrated their solidarity with the strikers, which could be seen as a flagrant violation of the joint n在 tional war effort，也ey actual1y brought the strike to an end without fuelling furth佼 unrest among the working class. In these weeks Weber private1y confìded that revolution was likely to develop if the war was not brought rapidly to a close, especially since there was still no indication that the constitutional reforms which were so long overdue would be implemented in the 挝革r future; instead , the conservatives in the Prussian par1 iament continued to tìght 出e electoral reform tooth and nail. Weber was fullyaware ofhow difficult it had now become - since 也e rifts in the Social Democratic Party had resulted in a brea..~away ofits left wing - for the leadεrs ofthe M气jority Social Democrats to maint在in their policy of national loyalty，在ced as they were with the organized opposition of the Independent Social Democrats, even though the su能ring of the working classes had become almost unbearable given the steadily deteriorating economic conditions. The crucial test for Weber's views on the Social Democrats came, however, w1由 the out七reak of the Revolution in November 1918. Weber's inirial reaction was negative in the extreme; in a violent emotional outburst he called 在e revolution an 飞rresponsible bloody camival' which dealt a d指出 blow to Germany's few remaining chances of stil1 obtaining reasonable peace conditions. He added, not without an element of tactical reasoning, that the Revolution was bound to destroy 在ny chance ofintroducing socialism for many decades to come. He was enraged at the utter chaos allegedly created 均 the workers' and soldiers' counci1s. Only when he eventually joined the Heidelberg Workers' and Soldiers' Council as a representative of the middle cl在附s did he realize that most of its representatives were actual1y respectable people who were workin在 for the common good! He also had nothing favourable to say a如ut the Ra t der Volksbεauftra在ten (Council of People's Delegates), even though

]oining the Underdogs?

85

mlcs 在伊inst the revolutionary government. By Januarγ 19 吟， after the Independent Social Democrats had left 出e revolutionary government , he was prepared to concede that, while the Independent Social Democrats were Ìrresponsible de榕在gogues or, at best, utopian romanticists ha出ouring revolu 叩 tionary dreams of a just socie可 free of all violence, the M气jority Socìal Democrats were ‘ honest people' doìng 出eir best under diffìcult cìrcumstances. Al ready by December 1918 Max Weber had demanded publicly that 也e middle classes ought to join forc岱 with the Social Democrats in order to create a new democratic order. He participated in the foundation of a new, decisively li七eral party behind which the bourgeoisie was to rally in order to put an end to the Revolutíon and to establish a parliamentary democracy. He active1y engaged in the preparations for founding a localliberal p在rty organization in Frankfurt, and 七ecame engaged almost from the beginning in founding the the fìrst initiative ha 汩 Vl血 ng been taken in ea羽rl German Democratic Par叩， 由 民ec∞ D 白m e 呻 be盯r 1918 七均 Y τ'he 恕eo 叫 do 旧r Wolff and some prominen 削t liberals 血 i n Ber1in , notable among them 检ing his brothεr A1 fred. In a widely publicized speech at a public rally in Frankfurt on 1 December 1918 Weber pleaded for the middle classes to shake off the political apathy to which they had succurr出 ed in 出e initial stages of the Revolution , and to participate in establishing a new democratic order jointly with the M气jority Social Democrats. 18 Under 出台 clr­ cumstances wholehearted co唰operation with the M电jority Social Democrats. appeared to be 出eonly 飞na七le line of action for the liberals and, indeed, for the middle classes as a whole. He stated emphatically:‘All honest, unreservedly pacífist and radical bourgeois democrats and Social Democrats could work side by side for decades 岱 come until their ways eventually might have 岱 part again.'l ♀ He also declared , in somewhat ambiguous terms, that his own views were 'very close to , if not identical with, those of many academically trained membersof 也.e Social Democratic Par町'户 ln the followi吨 weeks Weber became deeply involved in the electoral campaign of the German Democratic Pa汉y for the National Assembly. 过e spoke at more 也an twen可 public rallies, mostly in southern Germany. Here he argued again and a草莓in thatthe G柑man Democratic Party, and indeed all progressive sections of the bourgeois classes alike, ough

86

Weber on Socialism and Political 反adicalism

nationalization policies of the Council of People's Delegates 主e considered absolutely futile , since they would endanger the economic recove巧也atwas so desperately needed; besides they were merely playing into the hands of the Al lied powers, who would find it easier to extract reparations 丘om stateowned, as opposed to privately owned, industries.21 He denounced the po1i cies of the Rat der Volksbeauftragten, somewhat tongue in cheek, as ‘ digging the grave of socialism' and jeopardizing any serious socialist politics in the foreseeable future. Weber's belief in the fundamental superiority of dynamic capitalism became evident once again when the German Democratic Paπy invited him to represent them on the second Commission on Socialization, formed in 1920. Weber E飞jected this re弓uest with unusual harshness: At al1 meetings, everyw如何，七othprivat苦 and public, 1have dεclared ‘social泣ation'， in the sense now under胁。在 to be ‘ nonsense'. W，εare in nεed of entrepreneurs (like 坦err Stinnes or others of 油 calibre). 1 have said about the Law ∞ Facto句句atrizati∞: 如rasez l'infame.' From the standpoint 号fthe possiblefuture ofsocialism it Îs disastrous . PoliticÏ ans should and must m在ke compromis岱. But 1 am hy prof七ssion a scholar. . . .丁美e scholar dare not make compromìses to coγer up such ‘nonsensε， 22 丁且is

statement reveals a consider均le degree of selιdoubt about whether such a rigid stance was justified. As a consequence of this step, Weber left the German Democratic Party and withdrew entirely from active politics. Yet there remained an element of ambiguity in his attitude. He would not tolerate socialization in any form , but this verdict did not necessarily include Social Democratic Party politics. There was something more than tactical reasoning behind his recurri吨， although always ultimately rejected , thoughts ofjoining the Social Democra岱- namely, a sympathy, in principle, with their efforts to win a position of equality for the proletariat within existing society.23 But he remained a passionate adherent of a revitalized capitalist market economy, and it was only within these lìmits that he was prepared to support Social Democratic Party politics. He was always a fair antagonist of the socialist movement. He had the greatest respect for those Social Democrats who fought honest1 y for their socialist cause, however wrong he considered it to be. ln this respect Weber's attitude differed subst在混血lly from thar of the great m气jorityof his contemporaries i

6

Roberto Michels and Max Weber: Moral Conviction versus the Politics ofResponsibility

京.obeno Michels (or 丑。玩rt， before he renamed himself on emígrati吨 to ltal井 。ccupies a special posítion 在mong the contempor主ries of Max Weber in the

social sciences. It is impossible to classif址 him unequivocally under any single heading among the tendencies within the soζial sciences of 主is day. .& David Beetham rightly emphas泣es， his signifìcance as a scholar must be sought primarily in his remarkable capacity to co咱rdinate and combine divergent theo etical positions. 1 丁hroughout his 1ife , he 在Iso played the role of a mediator between the German and ltalian social sciences and, in a sense, between Germany and Italy in general. Bom into an upper-bourgeois Cologne family in 1876, he formed a special relationship with France and Italy at an early stage in his development. Having obtained a doctorate in history under Johann Gustav Droysen at the Universi叩 of Halle, he went on to pursue extensive studies in history and the social sciences iIi France and ltaly, where he came into close contactwith syndicalist circles and became personally acquàinted with Georges Sorel and Arturo Labriola.2 At the age of twenty呻four， Michels joined fìrst the Italian Socialist Party and then the German Sòcial Democratic Par1:)巾coming actively involved in Mar如lrg with 在 group of socialist intellectuals of markedly anarcho叫mdicalist colorati.on. .& someone w主.0 had become a socialist on grounds of ethical and moral con飞riction， he found himself more or less on the margins of the German Social Democratic Party. Ahnost from the beginning of 趾s involvement in Social Democratic politics, he criticized it 丘。m the\perspective of 在 po1itical strategy wi也 S严ldicalist leanings, which owed a great deal to 挝$自黯thand knowledge of couditions wi运in the Italian Socialist Party. His membership of the Social Democratic Party proved an 0部tacle to his HabîUtatiot官也m挂在cation for university teaching) 血 Marburg. When，在 Httle later, in 1906, he 1古iade a

•

88

Weber on Socíalism and PoUtical Radicalism

renewed attempt to obtain his Habilitation , in Jena , he was debarred on the same grounds during preliminary negoti a. tions. As a result, Michels emigrated in 1907 to Turin , where he finally got his Habilitation with Ach i11e Lo ria. Though he considered Italy his second home and felt ‘ at heart' an Italian, in his schol红ly interests he remained primarily oriented towards the German scientific community.ln 丁urin， he did , however，岛ecome ac宇lainted wi出 G挝tano Mosc在 and later also with vi1fredo Pareto.τne writings ofboth men we主e to have considerable influence on his own work. We do not know when M在x Weber and Robert Michels 如st met. The first lette主 we have fro坦 Weber to Michels dates from 1 Janu主ry 1906 and in Ît Weber responds very positively 艺oa ‘proJec始 pieceofwo主k' by Michels. This is proba七ly 在 referenc台始在n article on 'German Social Dεmocracy' which was pu七li如d in the Archívj运r Sozialwíssensc问fi und Sozia伊拉i是 in the 路me year. 3 τnat article, however, had been preceded 七y 在n 然sayon ·丁'he proletariat and the h区geoisie in the socialist movement in Italy二缸 whichWeb悦's support had certai均 not been lacking; indeed it seems possible to at役ibute its publication essentially to his initiative.4 One way or 在nother， from the spnng of 1906 onward an ext主emely close relationship developed between Michels and Weber, which was not equalled for intimacy and in艺ensity ìn the rest ofWeber's life. Michels confirms t挝s retrospectively ìn an obìtuary for Weber, written in 1920: 寸'he writer had the good fortune of eI飞joyìng a close friendship with Max Weber for many years of 油尬， which, however, at 出e beginning of 出e Fìrst World War suffered a shock from wruc'h it did not completely recover after the war had ended.'5 Between Weber and Michels there arose what 1 have described elsewhere as an ‘ asymmetrical partnersrup', the effects of which on the development of the work of Michels - and ìndeed ofWeber 町 in the social sciences were considerable. 6 As Wilfried Röhrich has so appositely remarked, where Michels was concerned, Max Weber took on the role of a critically questioning mentor , lending support to him ìn his scientific work with constant advice and critical appraìsaP But the full scope of his interest in Michels went far beyond 出怡， extendìng, indeed, into an existential dimension. In a certain sense, Max Weber s在wm Michels the personification of a conduct according to the ethic of conviαlon and in this respect his own alter 哩。- someone who, from premises wl

只oberto 品lichels and Max Weber

89

references - we may conclude that Weber was principally interested in Michels the socialist, or more precisely in Michels as a conviction socialist and, particularly , as a syndicalist who poss出sed clo优 contacts wi出七oth German and ltalian social democrats. We know from other contexts of the efforts Weber made throughout his life to encourage social必然 to participate in the Archiv , in his attempt to find possible ways ofbr.ωking the monopoly of 七ourgeois social sciεnce. The young Michels w撼。påmally qualified to present the problems of socialism and social dεmocracy in the Archív as an ‘insider二 that is to say，丘。m the standpoint of a committed paråsan. The fact that Michels's socialism denied him access to an academic career in Germany m在y have provided an additional motivatÍon for Weber's overtures to him and the interest Weber took in his work. W主ether or not this was the ca凯 Weberargu叫 vigorously in Michels's favour in the ensuing years and sought, wherever possible, to smooth a pa 出 for him. The refusal of a professorial 位le to Michels gave Weber occasion publicly to charge the Kaíserreich wi出 allowing 'freedom of scholarship' only within boundaries defined by the limits of cour t1y tolerance; this , he said, represented ‘ disgrace and ignomi町 forac山ured nation [Kulturnatío叶'川t was W cber who recommended Michels to Acrulle Loria, also a former student of August MeitZ饨， for a Habilítation in Turin. More importan t1 y, however, he did his best to open the doors of the Archiv {Q Michels; almost all the more significant of Michels's writings in 巾 su 由bs 由叫 e叩 que删 时ty n 严ear叫肌 a叩 pp 阳 eωa时 in the Archívj证r Sozialwissenscha斤， particularly tho优 articles that were later to be presented in a 圳在ed form in his famous Politica! Part.侣 , published in 191 1. 阳 1nadd 斟i∞岱队， We 晶 怡 b 柑rmade e efforts to persuade Miche lelS to pa 比 红.rticip 严 at优el血 n the work of 出 theV盯ell孜1 岛rSo 侃 zÌ挝 al栩叩. pol汹 itik (:βSocial Polic 叮 y As览 SSOCl句 扭 2 ∞ d å倪 m啡 n1 彻 d r仔rS 巾ozia ω 衍 a!，缸 操 d 如 h O仰价('‘Out出汪ne ofSocial Economics'), of w革ich he had been editor

since 1909. As early as 1908, he also began to press for Michels to become a joint editor, 叨 wid 由1J 扣af岱 E连圣汪， 弘 Sombar仅t and 挝 h挝 i垃I缸 E de 岱s守 pl挝 t祀et出 hefa. 马Cαtd 岳1磊拭tt也』弘怡 i达sm 出 Z丑E垃垣19 拉 ht hav! 吭 e necessitated 且如i怒so驯lW 叼ithdr室拮革walf台云om 狡2 主命且e 仅di让torial bo e 悦 缸rd.Or过 a l过ly 拉 in 吟 1 91巧3 was 也i必s a缸七拉icion real泣ed; 主oweve玄， Michels's editorsl坤 then came to an abrupt end 放在出e enrry of Ita与 into the First World W衍， essentially

90

路'e占er on

Socialism and PoUtical Radicalism

hope of Michels was that he might produce 在‘cultural histo巧， of the modern proletarian movement' in its ideological or, in Weber's own terms, its ‘wor1ι view' aspects. He repeatedly urged him to concentrate hìs efforts on a great undertaking of this kind rather than dissipate his talents in the production of essays and articles on current po1itical questions. He considered such an underz剧吨 to be 'an immense ta点 for whic缸， to my knowledge，州忡。u in the ext位主a瓦cti优ed 丘 firomMich淤 le1丛Is 出 th沁epror缸 n­ whole wide world, are fÌ tted'. lO Later sti1l, he 仪 i总se of 蔬n artic1 e for 也 the Grundri云力始 S必'S 击 d，εrSo 搅 çzi切al拉ö如nom ηti沾去 on 出t}且le SOCl总al挂IS汉t movement. Michels promised to tailor the contents to guid e1ines laid down 问 Weber， but the article did not see the light of day until after 飞Weber's dea白. For his part, Miche1s provided Weber with numerous contacts in socia1ist circles; 也s was how the Dutch anarchist Nieuwenhuis , for example, came to write in the

Archív. 我oberto Michels's early works are concerned predominantly with the German and Italian socialist movements and, at the same time, with the role of the socia1ist trade unions. 1t w剖 his perspective as an observ时 steeped in the ideas of western-European-style s严ldic在lism 也就 inclined Michels to view the German Social Democrats critical1y. An attendant factor in the judgements he passed on them was, howeve宜，主is own ethics of convictio凡 which led 坦m to identi斗 with the proletarian movement and to regard it as a fruit on the tree of capital叩 ism, destined in the end to receive its inevitable inheritance. 刊is essay on party membership and social composition in the German Social Democratic Party, which was published in the Archiv in 1906, already makes unequivocal refe ence to the points on which he diverged from the predominant political current wl也m 也e Social Democratic Party, one particular instance of which was his 飞riewon the 主elative distance between party and unions，飞ìVhich he saw as a m气Jor cause of the we毒草ness of the Social Democrats in Imperial Getmany. 丑.econ响 cluded, howeve宜， on the optimistic note 也就‘the German proletari泣， theGer自 man wage labourer矿 represented the ‘ well-spring' of the German Social Democràtic Party, 'a well-spring that was far from exhausted as yet'.ll 日owever， Michels grew increasingly disillusioned withthe quietistic course steered by the leadership of the Social Democratic Party, which was revolutionary only in its

•

i

且oberto Míchels and Max Weber

91

trade-union leaders , who wanted no truck with a politics of revolutionary struggle involving the active participation of the unio-ns, and were particularly opposed to the strategy of the polìtical ‘ mass strike' , It was in this context that the problem of the gradual alienation of the Social Democratic leaders from the mass of the workers fìrst posed Ìtself for Michels; their step-句-step transition from a proletarian to a petty啊bourgeois existence, and the shifts of position in politics and world由view which 出is engendered, seemed to Michels to have played a major part in producing an ossifìcation of the leadership and a quietist political strategy, w主ich paid lip-…优rvice to the classic revolutionary goals of the party, but did not pursue them in practice. Michels concludecl that pe句r­ 七ourgeois modes of thought had got the upp挝 hand in 出e party. Ont且1S pOl剿， Michel骂's 飞Tlews were ve巧 close to those of Max Weber, who, 击。mpremlses 出革t were to some degree opposed , had arrived 主t essentially the same conclusion, name与 that a petty叩bourgeois mentality predominated 飞λrithin the German Social Democratic Par咛. lt may be presumed that Weber and Michels discu辛辛ed their differences on 在is question at great length，七othin conversation and，命。m the evidence which we have to hand, also in writing. Certainly, Weber made plans to 飞risit WlÌchels in Rome in 1906 也r the ltalian Socialist Party Congress, where he hoped to attend the sessions as an observer. ln the end, nothing came of the plan, which had arisen out ofWeb町's lively interest in the political situation in Italy. He did , however, attend the Social Democratic Party Congress in Mannheim in 1906 , where he witnessed the famous Strategy Debate on the po1itical role of the unions. The debate ended, in e在七口， in a fundamental renunciation of the concept of the po且tical strike and a rejec响 tion of the idea of a po1itically aggressive role for the trade unions. To recall the relative片 extensive account of the proceedings he gave to Michels Mannheim was ve巧 depressing. 1heard Bebel and Legien refer at least ten times to ‘ our weakne.五古\ Furthermore, this extremely petty-bourgeois demeanour, all these complacent pub 1icans' faces, the lack of dynamism and resolution , the inability to decide in favour of a ‘ rightist po1icy', as the way 岛ra ‘ leftist policy' is blocked, or at least appears to be so. 鹏雹. These genclemen don't frighten anyone any more. 1

Michels's immediate reaction to 出is letter is not kno飞λ叽

though

there can be 1i时e doubt that he too held the par巧'矿petty-bourgeois demeanour' essentially responsible for its belief 出at the ‘ way for a "leftist policy" was blocked. In Michels's 飞riew， access could 七e gained to what he saw as a desirable leftward course for the pa汉y， if necessary by employing the weapon of the political mass 汉宜生已 Webε玄，七ycont室主st， tookψite the opposite view，检moaning the failure of the Social Democrats to respond to prevailing social conditions 如'y openly adopting a coherent revisionist 主ne in a11iance with the Progressive Lìberals.

92

Weber on Socíalísm and Po /i tical Radicalism

Instead the Social Democrats seemed to prefer to act as a force of ‘ inoculation', 飞IVhose function was to protect and sustain the existing, semi.…-consti tutional political order. 13 In his essay 'The G盯man Social Democratic movement in its international contex t', which was published a year later in the Archiv , Michels took the German socialìsts to task in no uncertain terms for their political strategy. 飞w叶呻l且.1Ïchhe 岛 fou 旧 md wantinga站 bove all by comp磊 rison with the ot出 he 盯rEuro.侧"唰 翩帽 帽 peansωocialistpa 盯芷rtie 创s of the Second In艺忧 e玄nationa 过1. 4Her陀 ef岳号fηredwi技艺thobvious disapproval to the 'universal acclaim' accorded to ‘ the relegation of 出εweaponof the general stri址" at the most recent parry congress in Mallnheim, 'to the furthes t corner of the parry lum汝r-room' and pointed {)ut that,‘perhaps with the exception of the Dani边 parry. the German Social Democratic Par可 is 也eonly one remaining within intemational socialism whose policy excludes the tactic of the gener在1 strike，在s indeed it excludes any form of direct action, even including peaceful street demonstrations. And yet t是is is precisely the party wìth the poorest prospects of even the slightest degree of success, as f主r as altemative strategìes are concerned卢 5 In a similar vein, he registered with some bitterness the 边solute irresolution and 守lietism of the German Social Democrats in relation to the measures that might possibly be taken in the struggle to prevent a 丑uropean war. In this context, he quoted extensively 岳。m the statements of numerous socialist leaders 岳om other parties. The conclusions he 也en drew on the state of the Social Democratic Par咛 in many respects fo主eshadow 出e critique which today goes by the name of ‘ secondary integration'. For Michels，出e condition of total impotence in which the German Social Democratic Par町 found itself had arisen not simply in spite ofbut indeed precisely because ofits remarkably high level of organization. Al也ough purportedly anticipating revolution, it could no longer claim to be a revolutionary party拿Its ‘purely verbal revolutionis缸， which lives in constant anticip在tion of the autom拭ic catastrophe', was not matched by any will to revol utionary ac tÌon. ‘It is a characteristic 岳ature of German Social Democracy that it assembles under its sin喜le umbrella the most flagrant of contradictions: revoluti 1μ

Roberto Michels and Max Weber

93

clearly 在s Michels (who was possibly the 自rst to bring the su与民主 to his atten-

tion) d部 qualitative changes in the party's political strategy - among 0出er things, a weakening of its revolutionary élan - had been 七rought about 恃 its advancing bureaucra也ation. At the s在me time, he did point out to Michels that this was a universal phenomenon, valid even 岛r bourgeois parties; he referred him in this context to studies 问T James B巧ce and Maurice Ostrogorski on Americ在n political parties. Max Weber and Roberto Michels did , however, draw very different conclu由 sions from their common diagnosis of the situation. 回1eber considered the pro叩 cess of bureaucratization in modem mass parties to be irreversiblc; what is more, ìn the specifìc case of the Social Democratic Par巧， he did not par泣cularly disapprove of its effects. Quite thc contra巧. in fact, for he saw the increasing bureaucratization of the Social Democratic Party as a guarantεe against 在ny serious da吨er of revolutionary activity from that quarter. In the contemporary context, he judged the bourgeois f出r of the much-invoked ‘ Red Peril' to be completely without foundation. It was during the debates of the Verein für Sozialpolitik at Magdeburg in the autumn of 1907 出at Weber expounded these 飞riews， puttin在 renewed emph剖is on the dis在ppearance from the party of any will for revolutionary action - indeed, even for constructive reformÌst politics. His statεments were entirely in line wi也Michels's posi∞n; indeed, Weber borrowed a number of Michels's own formulations.τhe German Social Dem酬 。cratic Pa咐， said Weber,‘is today clearly in the process of transforming itself into an enormous bureaucratic machine'. The lor弯曲term price of that transformation would, he maintained, inevitably be paìd by those elements within the party who were the bearers of ‘ revolutionary ideologies'. At the same time, he denounced the ‘ petty-bourgeois physiognomy' of the Social Democrats, who had, as he saw it, put 也me， bombastically griping and grumbling debate into the place of the Catilinarian energies of faith to which we have hi也erto been accustomed\17 This caustic use of public polemic was, however, too much for Michels. Evidence of his vigorous letter of protest to Weber may be gleaned from Weber's reply of 6 November 1907. which ìs all 也at remains of the exchange. Weber's deliberations on the s飞ject in this context are presented in a mode that was ve巧 charactistical1y his own. He sets out the arguments both 岳。m his own value-position and

Weber on Socialism and Po /i tical Radicalism

94

to be: political democratization is the only thing 出at is perhaps attaínable in the foreseeable furure , but thís is not 50 ínsig旧。cant 在n achievemen t. 1 cannot prevent you from believing that more ís possible, neither can 1 force myself to do SO.'8 Disregarding the shared premise th主t both started out from , name1y，在 common perception of the absence of any propensity for revolutionary acrion in a German Sodal Democratic movement，飞iVhose radicalism was pure1y verbal, Weber here confronts central poin岱 of dissension between Michels and himse1f. Miche1s was convinced in principle that a syndicalist s衍ike strategy could gradually undermine the exisring system, and that it could ulrimately 七nng about the victory of the 主ocialist movement. For his part，可Veber respected Miche1s's view, but demanded that it be regarded as a posirion 艺o be jqstifìed on grounds of ethical conviction, rather than as a realisric strategy 也就 might expect to meet with concrete success in empirical rea主ty. And when Miche1s declared his sympathy f吹出e spontaneous revolurionary mass strik.e, a strategy that was being propagated at the rime by Karl Li出knecht and Rosa Luxemburg and which he rεgarded both as a weapon of attririon to be employed against the exisring social order and as a means of developing the revolurionarγconsclous响 ness of the workers, Weber opposed him with some vigour:

It cannot possibly have escaped you that a very considerable proportion of all strikes (such as the defeated Hamburg dock，εrs' strike) achievξthe opposite of t挂在ir desired ef是ct， not only in 出e unions (this you would not mind) bur as regards e陀ry kind of progress within the w树立ing-class movement, which they set back by years if not 均 decades. Their effect is exac句如 opposite of what must be de时叶 by anybody who measures the value of a s位ike by 如 contribution to the advance of'socialization' or to the unifìcation of thεproletariat as a class or to whateviε主如rO'训sional) soci在 list ‘goals' you 1ike. It is the most bizarre assertion thatωn ever be made to say, in the light of these experiences, that every strike works in the direction postul在ted by socialism, ergo , evε号' strike is justifìed. And then there is this measuring of ‘ morality' by ‘success'. Have you totally forgotten your Cohen? Surely 头e must have succeeded in curin在 you of this at lea此 Mos剑tp 伊ar币 tiClω 口时岭 垃i主红挝吨宫 均 d i乌yir 与 川urin 吨 gMiche 淤.els the 比 e 号亨伊，厅 m 圳 1 t盼 o(位 i沁s

indeed

cωomp 严 el匙 led t咛 view

the conviction whic

Mi让 ch 怆 1泛 e昨

fund 缸am呈ε 岱 nt徨al妇1S拭t conception of de创mocratic rule巳， whi 让ich， though it owed much to Rousseau's idea of direct democracy, was also strongly inf1uenced 问r anarchistic ideas of a socie咛丘ee from dominarion; neither was he prepared，在s an alternative, to embrace the pragmatic concept of democracy advocated by Weber. On the contra巧， he continued to attribute the Social Democrats' unwillingness to

Roberto Michels and M献 Weber

95

engage in revolutionarγacrion under the conditions of the Wilhelmine semi叩 consriturional system chief1 y to a corruption of the revolurionary impulses that were proper to the proletariat as a class. 丁heir leaders, he claimed, had led them into quietism and a thoroughgoing accommodarion to the existing polirical system; 也at corruption stemmed from a progressive 执reaucratizarion， and indeed from an oligarchizarion of the party's leading cadres. In the forefront of this process, as Michels saw it, was the steadily increasing distance of the leaders from what we would today call ‘ the grass roots\Whatwas mo妃， he claimed, the leaders had sought to preserve their own posirions through a gradual usurparion of power. 丁he developing 己ureaucraric appara也ses had revealed themselves as wholly appropriate instruments for the attainment of this goal; at the same rime，出巧 themselves produced a further distancing of the leadership from the masses and from the prolet在rian milieu in generaL Conversely, Michels also identi6ed a need among the masses to subject themselves wil1ingly to the leaders once these had been elected. As he saw it, all these factors together had caused the internal party process whereby opinions and conceptions were formed mereìy to d唔enerate into a struggle for supremacy among 在 small leadership elite, who used demagogic techniques to form and ínf1 uence opinion among the m在5S of the membership. The source of Michels's ideas in this context was Gaetano Mosca's 在eory of the ‘ political class', that class which holds polirical power in its hands once and for all. He also drew upon vilfredo Pareto's theorγofthe ‘可clical succession of political elites', although he did not aìlow it to undermine his own radical喃 democratic position. The 6rst cogent formulation of such ideas 问Michels occurs in an essay on 'The oligarchic tendencies il1 society'，飞IVhich was pu注ished in the Arc主iv in 出e spring of 1908. 20 Most of the key terms, which make up 出e core of the 切。如出at he was ωp由lish some three years later, PoUtical Parties (Zur Soziologie d，臼 Parteiwesens in der modemen Demokrati，叶， are to be found in this essay. Since, however, Mosca and Pareto were still expressly characterized as anri-democraric thinkers, Michels avoided any possibility of direc t1y identi吗nng 协 ideas with theirs. Michel扩s and Weber's perceptions of the empirical facts regardi吨 the Social Democraric Par守 overlap conside础性 tl时 interpretatio队是owever， a

Weber on Socíalism and PoUtical Radicalism

96

relationship of domination户 There can have been no doubt how these two phenomena would be evaluated within Michels's political value-system; in his view, both tendencies were to be thorough1y deplored. 1t was his hope that to dεmonstrate simply the ways of their functioning might bring 也out an improvement in the situation they produced. Yet in no sense was he prepared to call into question the criteria by which he sought to assess modem society, and the soci在list parties in p在rticula乙 which he considered to be the true standardbearers of the egalitarian idea and democracy. In particular, he did not wish to question the ideal of a democra巧， which should be a direct democracy to the highest possible degree and immune from corruption by ei也.erpower可eeking strata of representatives or o1ig主rchies of leaders, an ideal 出at was very much alive in the anarchist tradition. He did, however, indicate that such an ideal was valid only as a yardstick against w挝ch reali巧r could be measured; it was not to bere在arded as a realizable postulate. Max Weber's reaction to this line of 在rgument was at once positive and extreme与 critical. He was convinced that Michels's radical-democratic per叩 spective, which remained oriented towards the ideal of a more or 1臼$喀alitarian democratic society of a socialist 可peo丐anized along syndicalist lines, would ine叹的斗 come to grief when co尬。nted 飞NÌth rea1i巧. He did no t, howev时， ln any sense deny the validity of Michels's perspective from the viewpoint of an ethic of conviction. Indeed, he showed great interest in 扰， though more as a thought experiment than anything else. In his response to Mich毡， he reiterates his beHef that it is possible to sustain two antithetical perspectives - the one pragmatic and realist, the other moralistic - on the postulate of the realizability of 主 perfect socialist democracy even thoug且 the ultimate consequences of each display far-reaching discrepancies: Your last piece of work i祭出e Archiv is，如wever， considered I/ery important 七y the people here; it has been mentioned to me in a number of different contexts. I found it thoroughly correct and commendable in its critical sections. But how much more resignation will you still hav，εto put up with? Co ncepts such as ‘ popular will' and genuine will õf the people do not exist for me any more. They are nctions. The same difnculties would present themselves if you tried to talk about a 'will of the shoe c。如 sumers' which was to determine the way the cobbler was to 在pply his skills. There are 仰。 possibilìties捕. Either •

•

1 ‘ Myki 吨domis 位∞制 例toft出 O h部 lSWO 时州 rld 占叫，飞{古 Tols刽 ωtoy 井)0 悦T 叮叩ndì北 Cωa也m 川tωak 险e '阳 衍 en 仰 1

可wh 祖 1让icha创mount 汉ts tω on 盼ot，劝彻 衍i，咆智 more h ε th 缸 an the 泛 ξ prop 严 os挝itiOI往lt由 ha创t ‘气the 恕古 叶 u1过ltim革tegoal is no出i吨，

a巧 syndi阳 cωalis 达sm to its cωonclus公ion! 阳 O红 2A川ffirmation of culture (i.e. culture that 叫则时self objectively , in technical 阳 or other - achievements) which goes hand in hand with an accommodation to the social the

mov，εment eve可thi吨， ...

thou基 ght th 扣 1汀rough

Roberto Michels atld Max Weber condi∞ns

97

underlying all ‘阳h盹ues'， be 出 the叮 yeωc ∞ O∞mic， 严 p01且挝1i 拭泊 ti ticωωalo 仪E川 叫灿 w h削 at，削古衍叫 E叫(抖闽 allof

咄』汕ich w 仨 w 阴 01ω 击缸泣叫 d 由 th 怡 hei 创忧 i让r 仰 m0 创 'st hi萨=泸 均午 de例 h v础 E soc制

i沁 11

thelatter 臼 cas帆 t飞， 在all 让I talk of ‘'主泛 re εvolut∞ 101钱l' 总 is a farcε. Any notion of abolishing the domination of man over man 与 whatever sort of socialist system or by however attenuated forms of'democracy' is utopian. Your own critique ín 也ís matter does not by any means go far enough. The moment anyone who wishes to líve as a ‘ modern índivídual', in the sense ofhavíng a newspaper every day and railways, electrical goods, etc叶辛玲bandor邸 1沁sthe C∞ ou附 of 陀附 'volu 旧 uti ∞ 10邱mj 乒-忻川川 r叫叫岭 if证 i怠 tsîot附 抑F草邱nsak v 梢 险e ， that is , revolutionism without a町 goal. indeed revolutionism for which no goal ís even εonceivable ‘ he necessarily renounces all 品。 se ideals which f1 0at before your eyes. Yo也 are a thoroughly honest ch在 p and will yourself町 as the [sober] sections ofγour article show 叩 car巧 through the process of crítical reflection which long ago brought me round to this way of thinkìng and stamped me , hy 亨irtue of that reflection, as a ‘ bourgeois' politician, at le的t for as lon在 as the líttle that one can desire does not recede heyond the horizon. 22 In the course of the followin这 two years , Michels further el动。rated 在econ咱 ceptions 也，at he had begun to develop in 主is articles on 出e Social Democrats, and had 白rst presented systematically in his essay, 'The oligarchical tendencies in society'. The piecemeal arguments developed there were now set down in coherent fc剖hion in his Political Parties , the first edition of whic坠 was published in 191 1.23 Al though we have o n1y limited ωncrete evidence of his continuing discussions wi也 Max Weber，也ey cannot have been without consequence for his work in 出is period. Michels himself expressly acknowledged Weber's influence in the preface to the second edition and, indeed , dedicated the first edition to 1让他24 Michels complied on1y to a very limited extent wi也 Weber's insistence that he should extend the basis of his analyses of modem parties 均 incorporating the available research on bourgeois parties; he did, however, in 哇le more general sections of the book, take Ostrogo主ski's works on the su电Ject into account. And he was clearly prepared to acknowledge, to a much greater extent than in 1908，出e utopian status of that total direct democracy which had originally served as his normative guideline and which he had also judged to be a desir在ble form 品，r the process of the formation of ideas within the par早 E呈e no longer regarded classical anarchism , which r变jected on principle any form of centralization of pow时 - includit王军， of course, 也e formation of parties - as a logically imperative theoretical position.25 In essence, however, his ultimate conc1 usion rem在ined that of 1908. The conc1 usion to be drawn 丘。mhiswork， he c1 aimed, was the practic在1 maxim of continued struggle a军ainst 在e party system's structurally conditioned tendency towards the formation of 0 1iga主chies and, more generally, against all forms of domination户丁he critical ana怡is of the 宙flciencies of democracy' presen时 by Micl由 aimed， by

98

Weber on Socialism and Politicall之adicalism

provìding ‘ a clear and ur始mbel革命ed insight into the oligarchic dangers of democracy, if not to be in a posirion了 to preven艺 these altogether, then at least to 讼必le to reduce them'.27 For Michels, democracy srill remained the ‘ lesser e飞ril'均 comparison with other forms of rule in general, and with pure aristo卢 cracy (as the classical form of oligarchic power) in parricular.28 Michels's cririque of the democratic party system was not yet a product of right-wing thinking but of a radical-democratic posìtion, which had its principal intel阳 lectual roots in the anarcho-syndicalist doctrine of a society completely free from domination. But contra可 tendencies have a habit of coinciding in history, and indeed this is how things were to turn out in Michels's case. When Roberto IvI.ichels dedicated his Political Parties to.Max Weber, he did so in part in recognirion of the many years of support he had received; in pa民 too , he was expressing his gratitude for the numerous suggestions and clari6.ca唰 tions provìded by Weber, largely during the period in which he wr侃 the numerous articles that formed 出e basis of the book. Weber's reaction to the work was by no means uncritical.丑e criticized it on a series of crucial points of detail, one of which was the concept of power (Herrschaft) employed 句r Michels. For one thing , he argued, the use of the concept was am祖guous; further, Michels had failed to recog出ze that all forms of sotial relarions 叩 even themo汉 阳刚叫蛐 were， ln a 阳风 power rela∞出 (Herrsch榜的农hungel吨级 The core ofl对立 interpretation may be vìεwed as diametrically opposed to Michels's roots in anarc益。蛐syndicalism， in so f二r as Weber declared the idea of a socìal order free from domination - whatever form this may take - to be inconceivable. His criticism here runs 在lon军 much the same lines as 站s earlier criri气ue ofMichels's positio纹， which had condemned it as resring on idealist postulates that must neces始rily come to grief when con丘。ntεd with empirical reality. Michels's arguments did, however, converge with Weber's own vìews on a number of central points: for example, in his emphasis upon advancing bureaucrarizarion and its consequences for polirical parries and, by extension, for the formarion of polirical objectives in general. The two authors were at their closest in their 飞riews on the funcrion of politicalleaders, whose demagogic capabilities, direc t1y corresponding to the masses' need for leàdership (which Weber termed their ‘ submissiveness' (Füg

Roberto Michels and Max Weber

99

•

mentarization of the constitu tÌon of Imperial Germany was th珉， in the pr vai1 ing circumstances, the parlìamentary system represented the best possìble way of selectìng politicalleaders of proven ability. And. in the early stages of the Weimar Republic. 且is political demands culminated in a call forνleader democracy wi 白 a "machine"' , as an alternative to the ‘leaderless democra巧' whose restoration in the course of 1919 seemed imminent despite all revolutionary cha吨es:lI It would seem reasonable to raise the question whether Max W出er does not, at this point, display an affinity - if not in form then at least in content - both with Gaetano 吨。sca's theory of a ‘ political class' that has defìnitively taken over the role of political leadership and, more particularly, with P主reto's theory of the circulation of political elites. One might even take the view 出at Schumpeter's well蛐known 出e。可 of democracy, which he views as a competitive strU ggle between politicalleaders for the allegiance of the m在sses， and therefore forpowe宜， represents a logicalεxtension of Max 飞X1eber's democracy theory as it might be developed 企om the standpoint ofPareto's circulation theory. 丁here can be no doubt that Michels drew Weber's attention both direc t1y and indirect1y to the works of Mosca and Pareto. Al ready in his ear与红ticle整 ‘ Oligarchic tendencies in modem socie巧'，如othau命。rs are quoted extensively, and it is difficult to imagine that their theories played no part in the numerous cônversations between Michels and Weber, whether in Heidelberg or 丁un认 even though, as far as 1can ascertain, Mosca and Pareto are nowhere mentioned in the par怨 of the correspondence we possess. (Guilhelmo Ferrero, whom Weber considered insignifìcant and second.…rate 均 comparison with 丁heodor Mommse n, is 出e only name occasionally mention<:d.32) One looks in vain, however, for any exp1icit reference to the theories of Mosca or Pareto in Weber's work. What does, however, emerge quite clearly from the comparison between Michels and Weber is the more or less absolute opposition between their interpretations of the empiricial material that fonned the basis of Michels's Political Parties. Michels evaluated his material from a democratic fundamenta 1ist standpoint, which regarded the principles of equality 卢d popular soverei伊lty at the very lea筑路 binding value-standards for scientifìc judgement, though not always as maxims for political action. Weber，均 contras飞 incre

100

Weber on Socialism and Politicall之adicalísm

r陀 el扫 no ∞ αnh 挝始 IS 仰 0w叼a 踹附阳部创 S10耶 白a 挝thi 尬5 ‘e盯tωhic 比cofr邸 岱sp e 严 onsibil 诅li均巧咛旷r户'de 缸 缸血 e En 蚓王

however , such moralist politics remained unre在listic 叩 even utopian - in the circumstances of the time. It is not possible, wìthin the limited scope of this chapter, to give a full exposition of 白is question here. We shall there也re restrict ourselves to two examples. InI飞oberto Mic怡毡's view, it was, fìrst, demonstra七ly the case that the bureau叩 cratization of parties and of the political system in general had , as a necess在ry consequence, resulted in a diminution in the quality of politicalleaders. In the 和st instance , he saw this simply 在s an etIect of an increasing dìstance between the leaders and their own party membership, though it also resulted from an inevitable tendency among leapers to make the preservation of their own status 也eir dominant political goal. Hence the vehemence ofhis declaration that 咄e beginning of the formation of professional leadership' was to be seen as ‘ the beginning of 出e end of democracy'户 Max 飞11eber, as we know, drew very dif二 岳rent conclusions from the evidence of an increasing bureaucratization within modem parties. Not only did he conside主 the trend towards ‘ plebiscitarian democracy', which inevitably involved a su七stantial enhancement of the role of politicalleaders at the expense of也扩ruled'， to be irreversible; he saw it also as a positive development, in that it served as a counterweight to the bureaucratization ofthe 哼paratuses of power. Similarly，鄂西er viewed as fundamentally positive both the replacement of the older parties of notables by modem，七ureaucratically organized mass par始 and ，、Nith them, the rise of the professional politician who, of cou主始， lives from ticularl忖 yl血 n the German politicαalcor泣 m 汉艺衍 硝 e 泪tof x politics, but also lives for po1itics. Pa缸T挝出艺 his 出d毒巧坏 弘， he Y 沈e welcomed the demise of the 01挝 de盯r 叩P 严e of 即J号铲快/々创旨矿油 ltansch 加au ωun 啼:g~亨 ;part，化挝 εdi (ideωology-心rient优ed party) and 让 its replacement 问1 profession主lly led political parties, since on与 the latter appea主ed to have ‘ a chance of ever acquiring effective political power within the Wilhelmine political system'. From this point of view, the progressive discarding of a revolutionary programme within the Social Democratic Pa町， and its replacement by a realistic pragrnatic policy involving a commitment to reforms in 把sponse to specifìc current problems, seemed to him a fur

Roberto Míchels and Max Weber

IOI

question of the bureaucratizatíon of p盯ties. J4 To the extent that burea非 crat Îz atìon and the attendant trend towards plebiscitarian democracy afforded the leaders in the upper echelons of modern parties far greater practícal chances of success in transformìng politìcal reali守， Weber certainly welcomed both developments; on the other hand , he was equal1y aware of the danger that progressive bureaucratízation might stifle political leadership altogether. Yet, 指出er than merely bemoanìng the creeping growth of bureaucracy in the organization Qf power, Weber aspìred towards a combination of the two opposing principles of charismatic leadership and bureaucr姐c organization, which he hoped would optimize the power of the party leadership to shape and form society. The power base of the great politicians, whose personal charisma madεleadership their ‘ calling' , w站， he argued, independent and personalplebiscitarian in nature; 吨uipped with 在七ureaucratic organization, they would be 在le to realize their goals all the more e在ectively.τ毛is view fìnds paradigm在tic expression in Weber's famous statement in 'Po1itics as 喜 vocation': ‘There is only the choice between leader democra勾 with a "machine" and leaderless democracy, that is to say, the rule of professional politicians 飞NÌthout a vocation, i.e. without the inner charismatic qualities that make a leader.'35 W捡破's argument here displays parallels wi也 the theory that he fìrst developed systematically in his outline of the basic categories of social organization, in which modern plebiscitarian democracy is regarded as an anti-authoritarian variant of charismatic domination.3ú T站s later work m在rks a shift away from his.own earlier interpretation of democratic rule as a value-rational variant of legal domination and towards a more strictly elitist or - if we may cal1 it such - an 、ristocratic' conception of democratic rule. Qn t主e basis of obser.rations of 也e party system and the transformations of the democratic system in the prevailing conditions of 也e twentieth century - observations which, to a great extent, he shared with Michels - Weber thus ultimately fìnds hirnself consign制 ing the principle of popular sovereignty once and for all to the realm of mere fìction. It appears perhaps only super自cially paradoxical not only that Ro七erto Michels's subs叫uent development should have led him along the same road as Weber, but that it in fact took him a good deal fur也er. 1t may indeed be impermls

102

Weber on Socialism and Politícal Radícalism

certainly, have made irreversible the break between the two men, which had begun to heal somewhat 在fter the end of the war. Yet there is a connection to be made with Weber, if only an indirect one, in 始 s o f:缸在盯ra剖sM 川ichel 你 i缸飞均$飞斗‘j严 j拉1 sion to support Mus岱solin 旧 1让i and 也 the ltalian fascist 印#主扣 Fl f衍εr怒-st!ωdωat 问 b yex 冲 pr妃 岱s豁s 芷陀时 e ef岳-白rence t始 oM在缸 x We 咄 b盯侃3刀7 Among other 由t;且llng 铲s， Michels was 在ble to invoke Weber's explicit claim that the emotional attachment of the br。在d masses to the leadεr constirutes the specific ch主racteristic of charismatic authority, and that the leader determines the content of policy on his own ultimate authori可 alone， while the assent of his supporters resides purely in theìr trust in the lead时's charismatic leadership qualities as such, rather 出an in their concurrence with the particular 吨jectives he 1在ys down. For Weber,‘plebiscìtarian democracy', which he views as the most si注 g也 nifi削 、 ‘1 i公5， in its genuinε 始nse， a 可pe of charismatic domination which is concωled behind a 可pe of a legitimacy formally derived from the will of the ruled and as a result of that will. The leader (demag。在ue) rules , in fact，与 virrue of the devotion of his 岛110wers and their faith in him as a person 卢8 As 1 have demonstrated elsewhe妃， such a conception of democratic rule , according to which the ‘ recognition' of the leader's qua1ities 衬坠is followers to a large extent takes on a formal quality, yet is at the same time expressly claimed to be essential in principle, wa剖s ce缸主E臼al妇 z双11与 y by no 韶 rne 瑞a双部s immune 台f 云白 OI岱 Z双1 po 岱s邻sible 划 肥 rel扫 nt纪 缸主守 e P主纪 etation along 在始 z孜1汉盯仔 ti 巾iι 甲-击 d emo 倪cra沉 ati 总 tic li拉 挝 a 岱S.3 e

τ且捡e perperuation of 剖 an element of ‘Y 'r 玄拮阳 权∞c:刀 e og 伊 m挝 tion by the ruled' in the form of

democratic elecrions, already formalized to an cxcessive degree in Weber，飞存在$ declared 七y Michels , as it was 问， Carl Schmitt, to be dispensable. That recognirion could, Michels argued, find 吨uallyad叫ua纪 expression in forms 0出er than democratic elecrions within 在 consriturional parlia黯enta叮叮stem. More preclsε坊， it could , he s在id， be much morεdirect1y arriculated in the fo主mof popular acclamarion than could ever be possi七le within a system of parliamen a巧r represent在rion. Indeed , Michels went so f主r as to characterize the former 巧peof ‘recognirion' of the leader as imperfect and impure:

•

under charismatic leadership, the masses dele军ate their will in conscíous admiration and veneration of the leader, in a form which appears almost as an unquestioned and voluntary sacrifìce. In democracy, by contrast, the maintenance of the a衍。fdεlegatíon of the will sustaíns the appearance of a will whích rem在ins potentially in the hands of those who delegate it to thεir elected leaders.40 Pushing to its 时 ical ends 在 reasoning which Weber had already elaborated in rudimentary form , in so far as he held that charis黯然ic leaders do not simply consider themselves ‘ the electors' mand在tory'， but rather cre在 te their following by virtue of their own specific demagogic qualities, Michels came to the con甲

且oberto Michels and Max

Weber

10 3

clusion that true polirical consensus could only be achieved through the elimination of thεelection of p红liamentary representatives, since suc且 an elecrion consrituted an act of falsifìcarion of the popular wìll. Weber's theo巧r of charismatic 1εaders who attract a following outside the sphere of parliament and parties by virtue of their personal demagogic capacities could be adapted with relative ease to suit Michels's ends: ‘ Charismatic leadεrs 筝.. make themselves masters -uf the 七ody politìc independently 0 [, or even contra巧r to, the traditional methóds of con丘rring the authority of the state upon individuals. . . Their power rests on the worship which their p位sonality inspires and is circumscribed by it.' 41 This was the line of argument that led Michels in the end to defend the rule of Mussolini express忡忡 referring to the ‘ ripologia politica di Max Weber, il sag在io di Eidel七erga'.42 Analogously, at the same rime he cast doubt on the possibi1i ty of considering the principle of the ‘selecrion ofleaders' 叫 a principle much vaunted by Weber 叩 to be a ‘ specifìc characterisric' of democracy alone. It should rather be interpreted, he main艺ained， in 白e light of Pareto's theory of the circularion of elites. The principle according to which the iεaders ‘ never gave way to the masses, but only ever to other new leaders' seemed to him fundamentally valid for all polirical systems; there was nothing exception过 in this regard 咋out parliamenta巧 democracy.43 It would, of course, clearly 检 izzappropri在te to attribute Michels's shift towards fascism even indirectly to Max Weber's influence. At the very mos主， Michels might be seen to have taken just a shadεtoo literally W抬杠's advice on the necessity for him to take stock of reality and revise the convicrions of his fundamentalist conceprion of democracγ. Yet indicarions of an inclinarion towards prot fascist ideas are to be found at a relatively early date in Michels's work, for example in his 1908 article 宜。mo Oeconomicus and ω棚operarion二 where Michels dedares that 'the age of individu过ism in the economic sphere' is today to be regarded as ‘definiriv ，而 el与 ya 汉t 矶 a 口 end\'.44 扣 1 兑 }始 1垃1S 吐 Vlew 叽， 岛 forms of cωO叩 operarive 0芷吃草a扭m泣zarion of economic 瓦 a criv 垃it守 y were advanci白 n喀 g 如 tor纪ep 抖lace indi翩 垃idua1ism on all 丘ont衍s. Taking co-operative 0主ganizarion as the lowest v common denominato室， he was able to prodnce 出at hypothesis through a sweeping amalgarria

•

104

Weber on Socialism and PoUtical Radícalísm

a certain sense to foreshadow the idea of a corporate state, which was later to be propagated by ltalìan fascism. 丁he advance of what he cal1ed ‘co- operative' 也rms of social organization (we might 叫ual1y term them ‘corporative' forms) seemed to Michels to have deprived the Marxist 也eory of classes of m u,ch of its interpretative power; above al1, since ‘ the 衍ndency to form oligarchies reveals itself in that class with exacdy the same vigour 在s in all the other classes of soclety二 the mass movement of socialism seemed to him inevitably doomed to founder;H Michels's work on co棚。'perative organization certainly of元rs numerωs points of departure for 挝s later de公ction to the fascist camp, with its promise of a fùture socie巧rwherεproducer，s would live togeth挝 in relarive harmony under the 主egis of the openly oligarchic rule of ch辛苦ismatic leaders, a society in which the historical contradiction betw优n labour and capital would increasingly lose all meaning. In this sense, his relationship with Max Weber can in no way be seen as the sole cause of that defection. We may note also that Max Weber, not surprisingiy，也und 也IS very ess勾ron 'C。咱peration' superfici在1 and vague and did not hesitate , even though he was perfect1y aware of Michels's sensitivity to criticism of (00 direct a nature , to write to Michels in all 丘ankness that,‘as a schoiarly essay', it had been decide与 below his ‘ usual stan缸ds'， since ‘ it w部 vag帆州es吨ped a number of issues a叫 fai1过ledωcl捡an玛 斗ran 4 咛 1 A1t出 ho 仰 ug 矶 h Miche lels had already left 协 忧 b ot出 h the ltalian 缸 Sociali 坦IS筑t Pa 盯rt巧yand 可 也 dhe German Social Democratic Party by 1907, we 边 should none the less avoid dating his renunciation of socialism and ofhis radical叩.democratic standpoint too ear1y (as R油rich in particular is inclined to do). In Miche1s's article on August Beb e1, which was published in the Archívfür Sozialwissenschafi in 19 巧， he still shows a substantial degree of sympathy with the socia!ist workers' movement卢 A1 though his enthusiasm for Bebel had clearly waned by comparison with earlier years, he sti11 saw in him the genuine representative of the wishes of the proletarian working class of Germany.50 In this context, he referred , among other things , to the opinion expressed by Bebel that those elements ‘wh。 在tt在cked him as an opportunist, and rallied to 也e standard of radicalism , or even of anarchism，飞NÏthin the p红可， most 出ually ‘tended suddenly t …

友。§εrto Míchels and Max

weber

10 5

conclude, on the other hand , that the same danger emerged to a certain extent fromMax 在/岳er's all too radical forma 1ìzation of the substance of democratìc rule, as it appears , for example, in his sociology of domination; it was for this reason that Michels could , after all; continue to consider himself a disciple of Max Weber even after he had become an apologist for ltalian f马 sClsm‘

PART 111

The Develop四nt of Max Weber's Theoretical Ideas

7

Max Weber on Bureaucracy and Bureaucratization: Threat to Liberty and Instrunìεntof Creative Action

The analysis of social consequences of bureaucratization was one of Max Weber's main preoccup在tions throughout 险 scholarly work. His famous essay on The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit ifCapitalísrn ， 严。说ly the best known ofhis worksin 出eE吨lish-speaki吨 world， ends with an almost apoc在lyptic vision of the eventual ‘ mechanized petrifìcation' of 百括tern individualistic societies, direc tIy inspired by Nietzsch的 Zar汉hustra. 1 For capit过ism， despite its origins in re1igious world-views (Weltbilder) of 在 specifìc individualistic character, appeared to him to be inevitably allied to the forces of rationalization and 七ureaucratization， 左忽d， if not inhibited 坷 counter-forces of some sort or another, might well end in the creation of a completely ossifìed social order in which there would no longer be any room for individual initiative, let 在lone a sophisticated personal culture 1ike the one which 'developed in the West. Weber's thinking was dominated by the problems likely to be generated by this secul在r process of bureaucratization which he 0七served to be proceeding, at least for the time being, with irresistible 和rce on all sociallevels. He considered capitalism and burεaucratiz础。n to be the two genuine revolutionary forces of the present age , which would gradually replace all traditional forms of social organization throughout the world, albeit with varying speeds and different patterns. Capitalism and bureaucratization were, in his opinion, the main promoters of the secular process of rationalization which, even though it was perhaps not i室主eversible， w在s obviously the dominant trend of ou室 time. 二rhis observation would appear to be corroborated by the history of the great world religions. Almost without exception, an evolutionary process can 忱

IIO

TheDe陀lopment 吃fWeber's Theoretical Ideas

discerned from primarily magic or charismatic forms of religious belìef, which are specifìcal1y 'otherworldly', to progressively routinìzed as well as Ìnstitutionalized forms of religious 在ctivity less and less at variance with secular reality. 在vemually， not just in the case of the ‘Protestant ethic' but everywhere else too , reHgious world...;飞riews became dispensable inasmuch as their influence on the social conduct of the people in everyday life tended to weaken, wrule institutional forces and material interests increasingly determined their actions and intellectual outlook. These ideas about the inevitable routinìzation and formal rationalization of all religious world-views were embedded in a specifìc notion of the course of universal rustory. This notion provides the backgtound to Weber's elaborate attempts to assess correct1y the nature and functioni吨 of bureaucracies, both past and present, on the various levels of societal li丘， notably within the political and economic spheres, but also in the cultural and educational sub叩也ms of advanced industrial societies. However, Weber was not just a passionate adversary of bureaucracy, as can be said of many critics of modem civilization，在11 of whom were influenced in some way or another 均 Ni的zsd况's incisive condemnation of modernity 豁出e beginning of the end ofhumanity and individual gre在tness. On the contra巧" Weber thought it naÏve to assume that under the conditions of modernity one might simply opt t古柏 altemative sort of non占ureaucratic society, 严 par挝 ticαula 主rly j证 ftl 出}坠le likely cωon 卧 呻

se 吨弓础

飞忧 f泛i拎 枕 仰 e 吼， 出t;且lere w 何ew 附 V驰在剖snoroomf阳与仗ra过lt，e 饺 m辛前扫 tiv 曰ewaψy 严s oflifi 岳e. Weberdid not thinkit atall po豁出le

to sustain 出e level of civilìzation and culture reached in modem industrial societies without widespread recourse to the bureaucratic techniques of social organization. A mere negation of bureaucratization and its co仆 comitam phenomena, in particular industrial capitalism, would not just appear to be a futile attitude for anyone who accepted the standards of modem civilization. It would also be wrong on etrucal grounds, being little more than a moral stance devoid of all practical signi6cance. Rather, modern man must face reality. In other words, we have to put up with the fact that we live under social conditions increasingly determined by bureaucratic instin卜 tions of all kinds. Weber's own attitude towards capit

Bureaucracy and Bureaucratizatíon

III

own life抽conduct in order to maximize the chances of achieving 0肘's personally chosen goals appeared to him an essential element of a moral code of behaviour in q ,msonance with the ‘ ethic of responsibility\Inord盯 to do this , the use of bure在ucr在 tic techniques w剖 not only perfectly legitimate 七ut ethica l1 y prescribed whenever these appeared useful for attaining such goals. The rigorous rationalization of one's own sqcial conduct in accord往往ce with certain ultimate objectiv岱， associated with a proper assessment of 出e social conditions under which one would have to operate，的s， m a way，也r Weber the ultimate o专jective of any human being seeking personal self-realization. On the other har址， Weber was allωo aware of the fact that bureaucra tÏzation and rationalizarion were 埠。ut to undermine the 1iberal society of his own age. They were working rowards rhe destrucrion of the very socìal premises on w主ich individualisr conduct was dependen t. They heralded a new , bureaucratized and collectivìsr society in which the individual was reduced to utter powerlessness. Weber's posirion was thus essenrially an anrinomical one. He simultaneously welcomed and opposed 出e modern rarional techniques of social organizarion 在ssociated with the emergence of bureaucracie骂 on all levels of society. He emphasized throughout his work the specific advantages of bureauα拭ic techniques for the achievement of rarional conduct in social a班主irs， but he w革$ quick to point out that the process of bureaucrarizarion was bound to have adverse effects on a liberal social order built around 出e principles of indi飞ridual均在nd personal self-realization. To put Ït 主nother way, Weber's inten由 rions went far 检yond merely providing precise descriprions of empirical bureaucraric phenomena; rather he aimed at systemarically assessing the inherent properries of bureaucratic 叩pes of social organizarion, as contrasted with possible alternarive ones. However , he did not stop there. He wished to draw attenrion to precisely those aspects of bureaucraric rule which were of parricular significance if viewed 岳。m the a七ove呵menrioned vantag points, namely (a) as a means of acl由v1吨 one's objecrives in the bes创tpo岱妇i晶M 怆 七 le盯ma and (作b均)讪asaf岛 b芷mofsωOCl挝 址10 a 臼主z 织an 出 1让i泣嚣arion 悦 wf丛it出 hah 坦19 纠 hd 击egree of ef岳 E丑iCdie 创孜叮， though 飞Nith possible adverse consequences 岛，r a liberal social order geared to providing a maxlm

•

112

拮 TIneD 胁eν 附εi句 O叩 P附nωt 叫ofWebe的古 T 刊 ne衍or，附刷圳 甜 eetti μ tω iical 胁 Ldea

The assessment of 由 the specifìc prop盯d 位C衍s ofbure在ucratic ins反白艺 ti艺仅 tutions as pure 句pes， i.e. as if they wεre operating in a sodal context without modi马Img orJ countervailing forces at work，出at is to say in a semi-static social contex t. 2 The analysis of the inherent dynamism of bureaucratic institutions, again assuming a social context in which there are no countervailing tendencies at work. In other words，七ureaucratization is seen here as a sort of selfprope 11ing process in time, which is apparently irreversible and which, if allowed to continue uninhibited , would eventually result in the complete ossifìcatÎon of the social system within which it develops. 3 With the help of this epistemological apparatus Weber then sets out to assess the specifìc properties of 七ureaucratic institutions, positive or negative dεpending on the vantage-poin飞 in comparison with possible altemative 巧pes of social organìzation. 4 Eventually, at an even more elevated epis优mologicallevel， bureaucracy and bureaucratization are used as comerstones in a substantive theo巧。fhistory， albeit of a purely hypo出etical nature. At this level the h公torical process is conceived of as an etemal struggle between ‘ charismatic' innovation and bureaucratic ‘rationalization'，在s Runciman puts ít,2 0玄， as 1 have described it elsewhere,3 as an etεmal struggle between the creative forces of charisma and rationalization , the latter being fìrmly allied to bureaucra也ation as the most effective strategy f与r achieving a formal rationalization of social interaction at alllevels of society. It certainly appeared that the latter was in the stronger position. lndeed , Weber believed 也就 in his own time routinization and bureaucratization had , at least for the foreseeable future , gained the upper hand over all charismatic 可pes of social organization. Fundamentally, however，也e outcome of this struggle was still open. In a way rationalization and charisma are antinomical concepts; 但ality oscillates between these extreme modes of soci在1 organization. 1

Le t me brief1y discuss the meaning of the concept of bureaucracy on these four levels, starting with Weber's description of电ureaucracy' 部主 type of social organization. To quote his own defìnition: The purely bureaucraric form of administrariv，εorganization， that is the monocratic variety ofburea阻碍句，忌， as regards the precision, constancy, stringency and reliability of its operarions , superior to all other forms of administrarive organizarion. Its operarions are calcul动le both for the h付出 of the adrninistrarive machinεry and for those who are affected by it. Owing to the intensity 甜d the scope of its oper在rions， it is capable of being applied to all kinds of administrarive tasks. Hence it is , in a purely technical sense, capable of attaining a maximum of effìciency and therefore , in all respects , formally the most rarional form of exεrcising authority over human beìngs.4

号!￥

Bureaucracy and Bureaucratizatíon

,

II3

It is for this very reason that wherever the co-operation ofhuman beings must l)e organized on a permanent basis the specifìc tech白雪ues of bureaucratic administration are superior to all other traditional forms of administration. The particular strength of bureaucratic administration is due，在mong other factors , 1"0 the fact 也at those who operate the administrative machinery and those who own it are kept rigorously apar t. In contrast to many traditional po1itical systems，也在 task of administration no longer forms part of the public functions of specifìc honorifìc classes, entided to a share in the exercise of public power because of their personal or social s始tus. 1t becomes the exclusive domain of a particular profession , the civil servants or, in the no和govern­ mental sphere，也e managerial staff (Privatbeamten ).丁hey operate in accordance Wl也 asy则nofformal 吨飞出巾队 withi咛recisely fìxed functions (Z剧由d伊 始ite吟， and in so doing are su飞jected to the permanent control of their superiors. They are expected to devote their fuH energy to the fulfìlment of their obligations, but they have to operate s位ictly according ωrules and must never let personal motives, emotions or inclinations influence their decisions. In return the 七ureaucratic personnel are often given a privileged 挝矶时， mcom­ parison with their social environment. The way in which they are remunerated for their work also ensures their dependence upon the bureaucratic institution and prevents considεrations of personal gain 丘。m influencing how 也ey car巧 out their duties. Impe主sonal performance of prescribed duties is expected from .them, not individual ini出tive or su良jective reasoning. The hierarchical structure of a b时eaucr叩c institution and the su专jectionof all its oper础。ns to formally ration在1 rules and regulations has, according to Weber，革 series of cruci在1 advantages , namely universal applicability to whatever sphere of social interaction , predictabi1ity and , above all, a maximum degree ò f,effìciency. All its opera柱。ns，台om top to bottom, can be geared to 出e rational attainment of specifìc objectives, since i吨rm句leev吨啪19depends 。由 on formal regulations and the 唔 s:pe臼 cifìc ord 缸 挝r挝 e 创s of supe哎flO抵 创 As Webe盯r均 始 hii泣m $优 self 旺 fp 阳 ut 拭ts i t: ‘T 咀 hef岛副}二挝 1过lly dev 附叫 阿εel v 叫均 叩 O ped 怡 bu 盯 u1双rea 创制 a以u川cra 路a汉忧 ti 站拙 lcm 附 肘 n 1忧ech础叩 刽矶圳 a 旧 n让加加l1 m Isn 必如 sn 衍 snmc s ∞ omp 严areswith 0

114

The Development ofWeber's Theoretical Ideas

丁his very fact , howeve玄， accounts for 出e tendency ofbureaucracies to mush-

room ‘ They possess 在n inherent drive to extend their control of those societal 主ffairs within their sphere of acrivity even further , eventually taking virrually everything into their grasp in order to eliminate any sources of irrarional or unpredicta剖e social conduc t. The demand for maximum formal rarionality and maximum efficiency requires that nothing should be left to chance. T如re­ fore , b旧eaucracies tend to su向ject everything to 出eu cor盯01 ， unless there are countervailing forces at work. τhey tend to sweep anything aside that stands in the way of their inherent tendency to extend their sway over ever wider segments of social reali年It is largely because of their Amtswissl仰， that is to say their 'official knowledge'，在ssociated with recourse to governmental power, that 出ey tend to make eve巧one comply wi出 their will丁l加 dynamism was co ∞ n s纣ide主时 ed 均 by Weber 始 tO 如 be a social 岛 fb芷r优 cee of a 优 se 怯E泣 m创 町 l 1让1.蛐翩dep 严er叫 1址 d盯 恨 m 1立t na 汾毒tur陀 巳， ∞ e 0ηC 优e 配 the e P主oce仍ss of 如趴ureaucαratÌzarion had got unde主 way. It is at this point that we reach the t挝rd level ofWeber's ànalysis ofbureauC主acy， namely its evaluarion not only as a perfect instrument of àdministrarion and rule , but also as a potenrial threat to leadership and individual initiarive and therefore as a danger to individual freedom. To be sure, neith盯住e modem state, nor its subsidiary insrirurions, nor modem capitalist business can do without 七ureaucracy， least of all modem ‘ mass democracy'. But at the same time it contains the seeds of their evenrual decline, or altemarively their ossificarion. In a way the gradual restricrion of individual iniriative 喜nd comperition li岱 atthe heart of the matter, if seen from 在 substantive-rarional as opposed to a formalrarional point of view. First, the more fully developed 七ureaucratic systems are , the more their operarions become stricdy impersonal: bureaucracy's specific natureεmerges the more perfecdy the more it i矿dehumanized'， the more com叩 pletely it succeeds in eliminating from official business love , hatred and , above all , purely personaI, irrarional and emotional elements which escape c在lcula­ tion. Second, all bureaucraric ins 沁s叩 ti邸邸∞ns 泛 ti:er技ld i旺阳主挝e剖 a如 m 吨 gl片 y to subject 加 per­ sonal conduct of all 在e individuals within their reach to formal叩rational regulation of their own making, if on

Bureaucracy and Bureaucratization

11S

are totally un油le to bring forrh leaders. Al l their operations are supposed to be pursued according to strictly formal-rational rules without thεleast regard for personal preferences or value-attitudes‘ Bureaucratic institu tÍons，时， for that matter , bureaucratic offìcials, therefore preclude rather than encourage 出c development of genuine leader由ip qualities among their members. Bureaucratic ìnstitu tÌ ons, if left to themselves, are not only selιperpetuating but also averse to all innovation or change which ìs not in line with their own inrentionalized regul机ons剥 RoutinÎzation and , evenrually, ossifìcation are 出erefore always looming on the horizon. These observations lead to the fourth level of ìdeal-typical conceptualization , namely the specifìc properties of bureaucratÌc institutions as compared with other types of social organ泣ation. As has already been poinred out, Weber deliberately accentuated 出台 hierarchical as well as the impersonal f白 tures of bureaucratic institutions, because he believed that throu运h 出em the social as well as the psychological conditions of modern man would be drastically altered with signifìcant conse电uences for the future of mankind. Seen from this vantage-point, Weber's theo巧 of bureaucracy was an exercisεin defending humani可. His ideal-typical conceptualization of bureaucratization as an irreversible process was meant (0 汝 a sort of selιdenying prophecy that 边ould help to prevent precisely the sort of outcome it 岳阳在st. At this level ofWeber' s analysis, buteaucracy is no longer regarded merely as a technical instrument for the implementation of rules and the exεrcise of power，讪 t as a form of social organization. It is seen as being, or at least forming 出e core 0 [, a particular 叩pe of social system, since its instrumental rational principles pervade the latter throughout. 冒出er subsum岱 the ‘pure type' of a bureaucr在tic social system unde主 the heading of legal, or rather formally legal, domination within the frame of referenc念。f 主is well啊known the。可 of ‘three pure types of1 egitimate domina位otτhis typology was intended to encompass all possible forms of1egitim在te dornination, and it was construed 七y taking account of 出eir typically di丘马rent moral foundations as seen from the pe呻ective of human beings 划与ected to them. Weber found three pure 叩pes of legitimate domination, namely lega

II6

The Development 吃fWeber's Theoreticalldeas

orgamz主tion， subjecting all spheres oflife to its activities.lt is based upon a legal system which operates accordi吨 to formal与 enacted ， codifìed laws and regulations which are purpose-orientated rather than based on moral norms of some kind. Its operations are therefore calculable and predict边le throughou仁 lt does not allow for any signifìcant individual initiative, lest this upset the system ev岱 to the slightest degree. Ideally its legitimacy rests exclusively on the assumption that all its laws are legal to the extent that they have been enacted in a formally correct way; 也εre are no subt辛苦ltive standards of justice or iεgitimacy.

ThεessentÌal features of this 叩pe oflegitimate rule arεhighlighted by con-

rrasting them with the other two types , traditional and charismatic rule. Charis咿 m在tic rule in its pure form , unlike legal rule, is hi在hly creative and capable of initiating innovative social processes of substantial magnitude. In its initial stages charismatic rule is highly effective, in主smuch as it usu在lly motivates the leader's followers 击。m the inside ou t. Theyare supposed not only to lend full support to the leader 相互t also to rationalize their own conduct in accordance with the ideals spelt out 七y the leader. Charismatic rule is al叫 however， extremely unstable and susceptible 丘。m the st在rt to routinization. Traditional domination, in particular its patrimonial version, is halfway towards leg在 lforms of government, to the exte挝出at authority is ascribed to a particular person in accordance with generally accepted traditions. As a rule , however, various social groups , in particular the landowning cl部挝、 tend to have a share in 在εactual ex时cise of power, especi在lly at the local and regionallevels of politics. Even in the case of pure patrimonial rule where the master has succeeded in mono皿 polizing the legitimate right to exercise power, he is constan由 confron时 by the d在nger of the administrative apparatus 抉ing appropriated by particular groups with an elevated status in society, be they aristocratic landowners or P在trimonial servants. In contrast to both charismatic rule , aided by followers personally devoted to the master, and to the various sub-types of traditional rule with more or less developed bureaucratic machineri部， formal legal rule relies entirely upon bureaucracies which operate totally according to the principles ofinstrumental rationalit)人 This method of government

Bureaucracy and Bureaucrati.二~ation

117

to challenges , extern址 。r interna l. 丁h泛 c挝z妃efo 已仗主纪ep 严et时 t刘 rii二 fa阳 C口t∞ no 倪r destn川O凡 f阳川u阳 ltsi 岱s刽i时 de or, le岱 like片， from within, 必 is the 犯eu 叫山 ltima挝t驶 梅 e

longer able to react flexibly

.

outc Ol口 ne立

τheì过 deωal峭刷刷刷喇句

扯 a矶 nevoh山Itior础 1岭a披玄巧 y scheme of hi 让i总st.始 O玄咛y leεading from cha 法础主盯n必 ssma创叩 tic forms of 芷r叫uIle in t白 he earl与 ys艺tag 驴εs ofhistorical de衍 velopmen 旧 lt to tradirional forms of government, be they p在triarchal or patrimonial in charactεr， on to the modern 也rms ofle伊i

and , as regards their governmental techni气ues， bureaucratic rule , although some traces of such a conception can srill be 岛und in the earlier versions of the ‘ three pure 可pes of legirimate domination'. On the co抵rary， all these forms can be observed in empirical reality alongside one another in various stages of development and 丘equendy in the most diverse combinarions. Histo可 in its enrirety consists of a theorεtically unlimited number of such processes, each initiated by charismaric breakthroughs of some sort with enough momentum to accumulate the energies needed to get new social movements going; however, the charisma优 idε豁出at provide 命 i叫etus for these movements are soon subjected to rourinizarion. Eventually these movements will crystallize into formal legal systems which are ultimately geared to líttle else but their own reproduction. ln a way, Weber's fascination with and at the same rime his fear ofbureaucracy, as a particular form of social organizarion with a lasting impact on all those su专jected to its control , is the central theme in mo悦。f his sociological wnrings. Did he，如wever， think that Western societies were doomed 七y the seemingly irreversible advance of rationalizarion and bureaucr在tization? 丁o some extent this would appear to be so. Though he considered 主isto巧 to be in principle an open田ended process , Weber believed that in his own rime all the social indicators were poinring towards the predominance, and the eventual triumph , of formal legal domination as a result of its ever morεperfect administrarive techniques. Deploring the German passion for 七ureaucraric solutions in polirics, he exc1 aimed late in 1918: The 1i岳less machinery 卡f modern industrial production] is solidifìed human spirit. Only for this reason does it possess the powerωforce men into its se罚lce ‘. . aS.1S experienced in modern factory li岳. Solidifìed human spi对t is also the living machinery of bure在uεr汉ic organization, with the assignment' of its functions to a multitude of speci在lized experts, its rigid regulation of competence and its 站εf衍chical pattern of obedience to the respective superior authority. The bure在ucratic organization is, together with the li去less machinery, about to produce the iron cage of future serfdom in whích men will have to live helplessly, like the fellahin in andent Egypt, if they consider all e茹oe时， that is to s在y ratiollal, bure在ucratic administration, which also pro飞rides for their needs，在s the only and ultimatlεideal that is to dεtermine the naturεof their 0驯1 government."

II8

TheDe附lopment 吃fWeber's Theoretical Ideas

But this is only half the story. In fact, much of Weber's work is devoted to mobilizing resistance to the universal trend towards bureaucratization. Throughout his writings he pointed out ag在in and again the threat to a liberal order cre在ted by insufficiently controlled or checked bureaucratic institutions. In so doing he deliberately reformulated his own ideal-typical models, and not merely for the sake of argument, into sets of di在metrically opposed pure 可pes， in order to highlight the respective properties of the social institutions and world-飞riews in question in a clear-cut manner. This he did from the poi挝 of view of whether they might contribute to 己ureaucratization by stifling individt现 iniriative or alternatively pro飞ride a maximum of dynamism, creati飞rity and leader由中. Most important in this respect is perhaps the sharp distinction which he drew between the leading politician on the one hand and the civil servant on the other. while civil se凹ants must attend to their duties and implement orders regardless of whether they think them right, poHticians must quit their offìce whenever they are prevented 丘om achie飞ring their personal o句jective趴在tle在.s t in essential matters. The antinomy between politicalleaders gif与ed with charismatic qualitics who are expected to give a lead to their followers and rally the peoplc behind their policies, and civil servants who 磊re called upon to implement thosεpolicies in a form在l-rational manner, could indeed not 如 greater. An tinomical interpretations of a similar, if not always quite as pointed, qu在lity also turn 咋 in Weber's 由eo巧r of capitalism, in particular the market economy. The ideal-typical antimony between a liberal market economy in w坠ich everything is left to individu在Is' ability to do 也eir best and 在仅ntrally directed economy is hìghlighted in the strongest terms. 丁he bureaucratic welfare state appears as a combinarion of these two 艺ypes of social organization; it accepts the market economy but seeks to allevìate its consequences for the workers who cannot sell their 1店。ur according to market conditions. In his own day Weber 七imself was an 对vocate of far-reaching social reforms, but he was careful to support forms of sociallegislation which would interfere as litt拴 在s possible wi在 the struggle between trade unìons and employers. In principle , of course, a competitíve market economy w在s definitely preferable to

Bureaucracy and Bureaucratízatíon

119

sought to show that these had to be paid for in terms of a reduction in the formal rationali 可 of the economy. In advanced industrial economies socialwelfare instÌtutions or social legislation were required to restore the equilibrium between workers and employers , thereby re-establishing the conditions under which individual initiative could still be effective on the shop f1 oor, such as in the trade-union movement. On the other hand Weber was acutely aware of the fact that a highly developed system of welfare iIistitutions might well undermine individual responsib i1 ity, especially if it were left to the state to sort out labour con f1 icts and wage disputes without the full participation of workers and employers. Occasionally he argued this case forcefully , even perhaps a little carried away by his own rhetori c. For example: In American ‘ benevolent feudalism' , in Germany's so-called ‘welfare insriturions' , in the Russian fact。可 consriturion - eve可where the iron cage of future serf过om is ready. We jllst havc to wait until the slowing down of technological and cconomic ‘ progress' and the triumph of ‘ rents' over 'profìts' , associated with the exhausrion of remaining ‘ free' soil and remammg ‘ free' markets , fìnally makes the masses ready to accommodate themselves in it. 7 Perhaps the most striking example ofWeber's dualist approach to the analysis of social reality is , however, the antinomy between market economies and planned economies (the latter comprising most versions of socialist economies) ln the second case the means of production are defacto , if not de jure , controlled (or , as Weber put it, borrowing a phrase from Marx, appropriated) by a particular bureaucratic class , and the social product tends to be distributed according to schematic formulas. ln the fìrst case both are regulated by the formally free interplay of the market-place. Weber was not blind to the disadvantages of absolutely free competition in the market, and indeed was ve可 much aware of the limitations of the market economy under the conditions of advanced capitaliSni. None the less he was ve可 defìnite on one point: all socialist systems, at least so long as they were based on a centrally directed economy, were bound to stimulate bureaucratization far more than any capitalist system would ever do. The dynamism of the capitalist market economy was the one factor which could keep the expansionist tendencies of

120

The Development ofWeber's Theoreticalldeas

since irs services were indispens均 le in all advanced m在ss societies. Bur it could be kept in check 与 sensible social and political institurions, and a dynamic political sys忧m. Indeed，现leber was definite abour the need to maintain as much dynamism in modern industrial societies as possible, by whatever means this 飞could be achieved. A viable market-orientated capítalism was , in this respect, infinitely preferable to any alternative system, particularly centralized socialist ones. On the politicallevel he held that parliamentary institutions with the power to set up investigating committees with statuto巧 powe室主 would 祉在 suitable means of keeping the governmental administrations under contro l. What seemed muc主 more importarit to him, however, w前 the development of suitable in白­ tutions to provide effective leadership. His own ultimate suggestion was 'plebiscitarian leader democracy'. An institutionalized combination of the two competing forces, namely charisma and bureaucracy, might 棚 und忧 modern conditions - come nearest to a solution 抬出e problemof 坠ow to cope with the perennial danger ofbureaucratization and solìdification of social systems. It is perhaps Weber's greate汉在chievemen艺 that he succeeded in assessi吨 the character of modern bureaucratic institutions both 自由e instrumental-rational perspective of their specific capabilities and in the substantive酬rational per'spective of the seemingly irreversible impact of bureaucratization as a rationalizing force as well as a threat to open societies like our own and indeed to the future of mankind as a whole.

8

Ideal Type 在nd Pure Type: Two Variants ofMax Weber's Ideal-typical Method

T主εdevelopment and systematization of an ideal明typical method of analysing

and presenting socìol。在ical and historical knowledge is one of Max Weber's endurin包 achievements. This is so despìte the fact 出at disagreement persists about the logical status and epistemological function of this method , with 由e result that its value is still hot1y debated. While social scientists tend towards a detached and often high1y critical assessment ofWeber's ideal句pical mεthod (although 出is position is curren t1y being revised) ，虽istorians， in so far as th句ruse typological methods at all, have found it most useful, som创mesin cor司unction with the older typological methods of Jacob Burckhardt. 1 In some respects H. Stuart Hughes put things in a nutshel1 when he 0七蛇"叶， twen句 years ago, thatW.出er's methodology marked the point of greatest coincìdence between 也e approaches of sociology and histOry.2 In recent years , social scìentists are taking more notice of Max Weber inasmuch as he offers ways of incorporating a historÌc过 dimen在ion into sociological research and developing macrosociological theories so as to lead them out of the dead end of the purely empirical approach suggested by logical positi飞rism.. Conversely, Marxist叩 Leninists are preparednow to discard the conventional assessment ofweber's methodology as an expression of the irrationalism oflate bòurgeois imperialism which can be found , for ex在mple， in Jürgen Streisand's Studien über die deutsche Geschichtswissensch侨 p协主shed in 1965.3 Despite the fundament在1 opposition between Max Weber's ideological position and Marxism, Marxisr阳Leninist scholars are recognizing it as an 呼proach which is, at least in parts, compatible with Marxist typological methods. 丁'his essay pursues two 0向jectives: to point out the key features of Max Weber's ideal唰typical method; and to show that it underwent su各stantial

122

γ'he Development 吃fWeber's

Theoretical Ideas

change af与er about 1913. It will also become clear that, despite their very diι ferent 由 sometimes diametrically opposed - epistemological aims , interesring parallels exist betw时口站在x Weber and Karl Marx. These parallels could pro吭de the point of departure 品r further stud}人 In 如S 1以Jor essay 岱ie "0与 ek­ rivität" sozialwissenschaftlicher und sozialpolitischer Erkenntnis', Max 冒出er had already emphasized the proximity of his ideal-typic在1 method to 挝主主义 whom he refers to here as ‘ a great thinker'.4 Wc检r describes Ma眩's theories on the 。飞jective process ofhistory as ‘ by far the most important example of idealtypical construcrions', although he does not discu岱 them in detaiJ.5 Al though 吐 过 lCde 叫 al-帽嗣帽 帽 Max Weber subsumes Marx's theory ofhistωor町y as a parricular varia江町tof俨白‘飞k E可 ypica 过1 cωons 恐st衍ruc 臼tion 旷 1f，，仕om a Marxist viewpoint this is obviously not, or at least not immediately, acceptable, since it implies that Marx's laws of the historical process have only a hypothetical status, or that they. are at best only parrial theorieswl创lcannotcl主i叽 taken 七y themselves, to be objecrive , let alone uni呻 拇指ally valid. Nevertheless, Marxists too might 在nd it useful to examine what 飞快ber and Marx have inζommon in this respec飞在s a more careful 在nalysis of Marx mí恶如 reveal. First, however, 1 shall return to the methodological problems of 且必tori呻 ography. Compared wi出 theories based on the epistemological programme of logical posirivism, Weber's ideal-typical method has the fundamental advantage for historians that it systematically incorporates the dimension of 'understanding'. This is done in two ways: (1) in ~he sense of understanding the actions of individl叫s， or groups ofindivdiuals, who are the subject ofl让storical contemplation, that is to say as a hermeneurical device , and (2) in the sense of an ‘interpretative' integration of the su飞ject area which is the 0句与导 j扣ectof unde町r阳叫叩 i如 吨 n gm m艺岱 孜 00 仰 ve 盯ra 盯rchi血 吨 n gpa 汉tt陀ernsofme 创侃 a拟旧 z1垃11吨 1唱 ，g各. (The latter factor , incidentally, relates it to 巧rpologies or theories of a Marxíst stamp, although Weber intended it to have a completely different - namely a purely nomological, not a St也stantive status.) Integration into overarching 'patterns of meaning二 to repeat my own phrase, entails an in化亨retat必n ofthesu飞ject areas which are dεscriptively comprehended, by means of the ideal响typical models，合om certain relevant viewpo

ldeal Type and Pure Type

123

hig坠 value placed on discip 1ine, and so on. 1n other wor缸， it is those features of

bureaucratic organization which are stressed precisely because they lead, pot优e栩 扣 n tially 倪 0 r aκCtlω 飞u 在all忖 y (争at 出 the lev 昵el of cωoncαep 严t formation 出 d11总s distinction 臼s lmma肘t忧e 盯 阳rω)， 始 the repressi 侃 。f responsible behaviour and individual initiative and to the eventual emergence of a society of 出Ofoughly con品rmist ‘pro­ fessionals'.6 Initially Weber did not hesitate to describe his 'interpretat时， method (ì.e. subsuming social phenomena under ideal 可pes constr飞lcted in this way) as establishin革在‘value-relationship' in keeping with Ri ckert's neo-Ka ntian theory，七 ut he distinguished it sharply from the passìng of ‘valueτjudgements飞 As he saw ìt，‘value飞judgements' could be avoided precisely because ‘valuerelationships' only establish an interrelation between certain social phenomena and certain ideal values, while they do not explicitly ev在luate them in any way. The information is supplied which enables an evaluation to be made on a rational 弘SlS 111 出e lightof cεrtain ‘ultimate' concerns. In the case selected here asan 似ample，也is could be either an affirmation ofbureauctatic techniques or, conversely, a r飞jection of 也em in line with certain ìnstrumental冉rational or value-rational viewpoints in 也e context of value-positions of a principally meta-sCÌentific status. Weber himself æ宫 sumed that as a rule any such evaluation amounted to a conf1ict between different, if not competing, ideal values which claim 吨ual allegiance 丘。m the individual. For Weber, the ‘ purpose of ideal-typical concepts was to accentuate not the generic similarities between cultural phenomena, but 出eir differences'.7 This also holds true for the various ideal唰typical constructions which are to be found in Weber's wo点 although， as we 品在11 see，出eir emphasis changes and the epistemological 在oals they serve undergo a certain displacement. 丁his provides a first answ盯 to those critics ofWeber's methodology, notably pfister and Janoska-Bendl , who argue that his ideal-typical method is ambiguous and that 扣 presents a large number of ideal types of varying epistemo呻 logical status without distinguishing them clearly from each other.8 Weber was obviously not interested in standardizing the construction of ideal-typical con阳 cεpts or models. On the contrary，由e conceptual terminology he chose permits a whole range of va 翻

12 4

The Development 吃fWeber's Theoretical Ideas

accen艺uaring those aspects which are seen to have parricular significance 击。ma specific vantage时point (which may be affected by personal preferences, be they of a value-oriented or an instrumental nature).τ主is accentuarion is seen to be value-neutral because ideal typ岱 are considered no more than instrumental in achieving the clearest possible conceptual understanding of given circum … stances in the light of 'ultimate' 飞riewpoints. 丁h句 are intended to measure the discrepancy between a particular segment of empirical reali守 and the constructed norm, not to provide a direct representation of reality. In other words , ideal-typical ωnstructs are always perspectival.丁his means that they catll10t be used to attain a ‘ holisric' understanding of the wo r1 d; rather, their theme is a theorerically limited number of segments of reality. In comparison wi出 convenrional conceptualizario邸 of the wo r1 d-historical process，部 proposed by the classical philosop坠Y ofhistory, this epistemological programme m在y sound modest. However, the range of ideal-typical concepts Weber developed on this methodological basis ìn 比 socìological work is extraordinarily wide. In many cases they come close to universal-historical schemes of the historical process as such. Basically, two categories of ideal 可pes can 七e disringuished in Weber's methodological wrirings:

structural types - i.e. constructs which represent structures (也ey may be either ideal or material in kind); 丰 types of socìal ch在nge - i.e. constructs which represent historical processes in t1 me. 1

In both cases the formarion of ideal-typical concepts ranges over 在 wide spectrum and the id叫-typical constructs differ 飞Nidely in the scope of their applic必ility. In other words, we are dealing with ideal 巧pes of very different degrees of aggregarion and complexity. Weber's historical and socìological work contains 主 wide range of id叫叩 可pical structural models (to introduce a term which he himself did not use，已ut which is perfectly comparible with his own approach). The range extends from ideal-typical constructs which attempt to encapsulate the significance of parricular historical formarions , such as '也e West' or (岱 take an example Weber re岳岱 to himself in his essay on ‘Objec创ty in the socìal scìe匹es') ‘山 Renais­ sance飞 right through to const主ucts of compararively limited scope and complexity such as 'par可 of notables',‘ the state',‘legal dominarion'，在nd so on. A large number of phenomena which are empirically relarively diffuse and，在s a rule，在ppear in a wide range of different modes are subsumed under a rariona l1y constructed, internally consistent concept which deliberately accentuates those aspects w hich carry significance in a wider interpretarive context. The ideal

ldeal Type and Pure 斗1'e

12 5

type of ‘ the state' 忌，均ove all , distinguished from a large number of otherwise comparable institutional 讪dies by its ‘ monopoly of physical violence'. Legal domination ide在 lly represents rule according to formally enacted regulations, which need not have any substantive foundation at all; the merely formal nature of its basis represents its specifìcity带 A ‘party of notables' is distinguished by a particular pattern of restricted representation, limited to a socially elevated group which , on the grounds of exercising important social functions , claims the right to speak for the people as a whole. 丁'his strategy of accentuating sig忧el近 de 臼al-唰.幽-翩句 ω. nifìcant aspects rende主sthe 严re P 时ti始泣吨 gl弘 h对iist，ωoricωal 窍 realit咛 y 丘or缸 n a叩 s pe町Cl埠 fìc 驰 van 挝 l扰tag 驴e-poÌI挝 1汉t wh 挝 1垃ich， of cωou 町rs吮 吼， m e 支双l巧 aY 占if1旺 d fe盯r 丘om context tωo ∞ c ont，饺 础 e 珉泯艺 x t. Tl且le id 命eal type of bureaucracy, for example, emphasizes above all its superior e伍ciency compared 如 other types of social organization; on the other hand , bureaucratic institutions are inherendy hostile to individual initiative and accordingly 出eypose 在 threat to freedom，部pecially if seen in a universal占istorical perspective. At a fìrst glance, ideal typ岱 of social or ideal structures are relatively static. As we shall s时， however, this is not necessarily the case - for example, when 出ey are arranged in pairs or even in systems. Besides, they often have to be seen as directional 巧pes， that is to say they embody an ideal-typic在1 trend which unfolds their inherent principles of construction in an ever purer form. Bureaucracies, for example, tend to progressively extend their scope to ever wider areas of sociallife if no opposing factors prevent them from unfolding their 地erent principle ever more fully. ‘ Legal dominatio泣， will eventually elirninate all substantive elements which may be embodied in an existing legal order, because such fundamentalist elements in principle merely t，εnd to dis扭曲 the smooth operation of the formalistic procedures which ideally establish its ‘legality飞丁'his may demonstrate that ideal-typical structural models are 已Iy no means s怨缸， although they are composed in a way which precludes the inclusion of any temporal components. On the contra巧， Weber often uses pairs of ideal-typical concepts constructed in a dichotomic form , precisely in order to demonstrate 出at 也e respective dominant principles of organization or s

126

The Development 号fWeber's Theoretical Ideas

homogeneous groups which are likely to have significant social cons吨uenc岱， either d严lamic or st斜拉， through to explicit ideal-typical models of historical processes 何如ch，如wever， differ widely in their scope). In his essay on Q专jectivity in the 阳也1 sciences二 which is, incidentall}叫ill dose (0 historicist conceptualization骂， Weber observes: ‘ Developments can also be reconstructed in an ideal-typical manner; and those reconstructions can be of considerable value.' 10 As already mentioned, Weber considered Marx's the。可 ofhistorγto be an ‘ ideal-typical developmental model' of this 可pe. M. uch the same could be said about the essays onγne Protestant Ethic and the Spirit Of Capitalí.sm. Weber based his interpretation of the emergence of modern, capital-intensive, marketorientated capitalism (出 at is to 町， not 呻talism as 叫1) on an ideal叫rpic在l developmental model of a similar nature. To be more precise, he used it as a means of explaining why thìs new type of economic activi句， dosely associated 飞NÍth a specifìc life-conduct and geared specifically towards capital accumul注明 tion and increasing profi怒 emerged among 七ourge01s en泣epreneurs 在nd gradually developed into a revolutionary force wlùch irresistibly supplanted the economic systems predomin在ntin 校aditional socieries, where life-conduct was dominated by tradition and social status, and economic acrivity w在s geared to maintaining 在 certain li岳style in line wi出 the social role of the respεctive social groups, rather th在n to maximizing production and economic expansion. It should be mentioned in passing that Weber by no means intended 出lS 也esis to be a comprehensive explanation of the development of capitalism as a new economic formation of potential - and increasingly real - revolutionary quality. Rather, it was meant to be an idωl-typical reconstruction of a particular segment in the hìstory of the genesis of modern capitalism, namely the interrelationshìp of economic acti飞1Ïty and the value-oriented li岳阳conduct of the entrepreneurial dass in nascent capitalism. A comparison of this model with Marx's theo巧r of 'primary accumulation' would certainly be productive. Another case in question is Weber's developmental model of a secular process of ‘ rationalization' in the West culminating in the modern，吐emagicized' technical civilization of our present age, assisted among othe主 facto路与 modern rational science. 丁且is is also, certainl

Ideal 乃'Peand Pt附乃'P e

E 丰7

reali巧. In fact at every juncture in the historical development of Western

culture things could also have taken a different turn , and they frequendy did, at least partially. The ideal-typical model of rationalization is constructed around the idea 在at rationalization will win through because of its inherent dynamics , but all the same it is an ‘ open' model that neither claims inevitability nor can be expressed in evolutionist terms as a su七stantive reconsrruction of the social history of the West perse. 11 丁his observation is corroborated by the fact that in Weber's late work the ideal type gradua l1y t达es on a new, far more formalized shape. Starting with Übereín告eKat，哩。rien der verstehenden Sozíol哩íe (I913}, 12 and culminating in the ‘ Kategorienlehre' of Economy and Society ,13 Weber turned away from 也is sort of ideal-typical, unilinear reconsrruction of certain culturally specific sequences of the historical process. 气rhis shift in the meaning ofideal 句pe is linked direc t1y to the development of a formal-rational variant of ideal types consrructed according to criteria of 'functional rationality' (Richt告趾itsrationalität) 叩 or， ln other words, according to the full adaptation of forms of social action to the imctional requirements which will ensure the fil l1est attainment of the o与 ectives pursued. By 1913 Weber clearly gave pre岳阳.îce to functiona l1y rarional (riChti也keitsrational) idea1 types over 0出er possible variants of ideal句pical constructions, although 也ere existed a multiplicity of different versions in the earlier essays , notably in ‘0电jectivi咛 m 出e social sciences'. In Weber's 飞lÌew， social conduct is in accordance with the criterion of ùncrional rationality - or, as he puts it, Richtigkeitsrationalítät - when it is oriented exclusively by consider革tions of how the means available, in order to achievea p在rticular end, can be put to optimum use without the intervention of value皿rational or other funda附ntalistic factors of a su专jective nature; 悦， 1n other words, when social conduct accords with the principles of rational science and is exclusively oriented by instrumental叫rational considerations. 14 That is to say, he wishes to give speci在1 consideration to those forms of social conduct which are ideal1y adapted to the formal conditions and technical means which will ensu吏e the fullest implementation of its objectives. In this context Weber exp1icitly points out that for developìng general concepts of so

128

The Development ofWeber's Theoretical Ideas

dichotomy between the 可pe of ‘ correc t1 y rational action' and subjectively motivated types of action 挝、ntwicklungsdynamisch von der höchsten Bedeutung' ,15 as highly signifìcant in respect of its potential for initiating ‘ dynamic development'. The 可pe of Richt价eitsrationalität takes as its theme precisely those aspects of social reali可 which may speed up social change as a result of superior social organization or formal-rational effìciency, in contrast to those aspects which really belong to the Geltungssphäre , the sphere of subjective values. In Weber's early methodological essays this difference is not clearly expressed. The dichotömy of value-rational action and functionally rational action (richt告keitsrationales Handeln) is not systematically utifolded before 191 S, although we encounter the distinction between formal and substantive rationality already in The Protestant Ethic , although only f1 eetingly. Beginning with the ‘ Introduction' to the Collected Essays on the Sociology oJRel也ion and the ‘ Zwischenbetrachtung'16 this dichotomy rises to a prominent position in Weber's though t. Here he distinguishes systematically between 'formal rationality' (i.e. purely instrumental rationality oriented towards specifìc goals) and ‘ substantive rationali町， (i.e. rationality oriented towards ‘ ultimate' and binding material values , which determine its direction and intensity). From now on Weber is interested in bringing out as clearly as possible the tension which exists between instrumental-rational organization in social reality and the potential1y multiple forms of ‘ substantive rationali町'. Accordingly, he increasingly opts for constructing systems of ideal types which are informed by the principle of Richtigkeitsrationalität , that is to say, an optimal adaptation to the functionally rational conditions of social action, and not by subtantive ideal values. This shift of emphasis in the formation of ideal 叩pes is also expressed in a change in nomenclature. In the essay Über einige Kat，吃gorien der verstehenden Soziologie , Weber argues , somewhat surprisingly, that if ideal 可pes are constructed in accordance with functional rationality (Richt价eitsrationalität)， the ideal type becomes in fact a (pure) 可pe which is formed by a reductionist process from a set of factual obse凹ations (‘ eine empirisch zum "reinen" Typus sublimierte Faktizität den Idea问pus bil击').17 In these s

ldeal Type and Pure 乃'P e

129

士he ideal-typical casuistry or, to be more precise，也ec在汉lÌstry of'pure types'

as presented in an extremely formalized way in Economy and Society , deli berately accentuates the dimension of ‘ formal rationality' or 'instrumental ration窑汪句': it is the maìn principle which informs 出e construction of these ‘pure 可pes\The perspectival dimension，时， as Weber initially expressed it, in accordance with Rickert, the function of establishing ‘ value-relationships' via the construction ofideal rypes, was relegated to a secondary position without，且owever， losing its signifìcance. In the ‘ Soziologische Kategorienlehre', the chronologically latest section of Economy and Socie守 written in 1920 (Weber acrually intended to rewrite the whole work 嘉long the same lines), Weber embarks upon a casuistry of ‘ pure rypes' which , in line with the principle of Richtigkeitsrationalit梢， are constructed in such 在 manner as to unfold the relevant principle inherent in each case in the purest possible f.与rm.τhese ‘pure 叩pes' differ from the nsage of ideal 可pes which we fìnd in Weber's v\rritings before 1918 in that as a rule 也ey are arranged in groups which are linked with one another in a complementary, dichotomic or hierarchical relationship, each represenring an ideally altogether different principle. Accordingly these pure 可pes are deliberately consrructed in such a mann世 as to conform to the εxtreme pole within a 飞Nide spectrum of alternarive forms of social action, social conduct or social instirurionalization. A te11ing example is the ideal-typical dichotomy 如tween 也e 'responsible politician' who acts in principle on his own initiative only，在nd 白e civil se凹ant dependent throughout on directives 击。m 出e bureaucratic 在ppararus， 19 or, as 1 have already mentioned, between the capitalist entrepreneur and the capitalist rentier whose income derives from 缸ed interes r.占earing securiries, and which is accordingly decoupled from economic conjunctions. A particular1y inte主esti吨， and highly controversial, example is 出edichotomy between the pure 巧pes of ‘ market econo黯y' and ‘ planned economy' which is presented in considerable detail in Economy and Socie号人 Weber systematical1y sets t检se two economic formations against one another, as being fundamentally different in their composition and their respective economic and social conseq时nces， and then relates them to other dichotomous typologies such as ‘ "formall

13 0

The Development 号fWeberJs Theoreticalldeas

limÏt atìons on the formally 岳ee marketing of labour - proves to be a pìtìless ‘ cage of serfdom\In t挝s respect Webe宜's typological model ìs ìn no way less harsh than Marx's assessment of early capìtalism户 Weber uses the twìn paìr of ‘ market' and ‘ planned' economy, together with a typology of the possìble varìant organìzatìonal forms of ‘ labour' and economic performance, as an Înstrument for a systematic reconstruction of all the known forms of economic systems since antiquity. At the same time it provides an assessment of the rel tive ‘socíal costs' of any particular 可pe of economic 巧stem or labour organization which may be chosen from a spectrum (in many respects en平irically infìnìte) of pracrical opri6ns 合om a vantage-point w hich is unequivocal1y com叩 mitted to 出εideal of the 丘ee individual who can take respònsibili可 for his or her own creative acrions. 丁his is even more 。如ious in what is probably the best明knúwn example of a multidimensional modelωmprising a system of several ‘ pure types' , namely the 'three pure types of legitimate domination\Since a rather more detailed account of this 可pology w能在iven elsewhere in this volume, it may suffìce mer e1y to pinpoint the essential asp配ts relevant in this context.lt distinguishes between legal , traditional and charismatic domination， ωch of which 知在s its own specific claim to legitìmacy. In the case of legal domination legitimacy 主ests on forma l1y enacted rules; in 出at of traditional domination it is based on the ‘ sanctity of good old custom' and prescriptìon; whereas in the case of charismatic domination the source oflegitimacy is the charismatÎc quality of a leader which Îs inherently unstable , although it can be recast in an instirutional form (institutionalized charisma). Each one of these ‘pure 巧rpes' of legitimate domination refers to a particular source of1 egitimacy which is opposed to that of the other two. lt is claimed that these 可pes together cover al1 conceivable forms oflegitimating the exercíse of power. Th扩three pure typ岱 of1egitimate domination' are, in a way, a typological reconstruction of unìversal history seen from 在 specific angle, namely how permanence in the exercise of power may be secured and in what modes it may be considered legitimate by the su专jects. 唱1e are therefore no longer dealing merely with a reconstruction of a p在rticular segment of the historical proce部告。m a certain vantage-point, as was the ca

•

ldeal Type and Pure Type

131

appropriation of the ruler's original charisma 七y a ruling class. 丁raditional dominatio l1 is constantly exposed to er例如n by routinization of the substantive principles from which it draws its legitimacy, and ultimately routinÎza泣。n lays the 也 undation for the emergence of a system of purely legal domination. Legal domination tends gradually to elimÍnate all 出ose value-rational principles which initially justifìed it, by purely pragmatic regulations; if 也is goes on for a long time the system eventually wi1l stagn在 te and ultimately becomes petrifìed; 也us it Ís ripe for a ‘ charismatic revolution', a charismatic 毛reakthrough' whìch will wipe out the network of formalized patterns of social interaction and bureaucratic institutions and install a new, value蝇。rieuted social system. It would be wrong, however，始 interpret this as a circular model of the course of universal historγ. It should be realized that in empirical reality only mixed versions o f1 egitimacy of domination exist, that usually diÐ企rent types of legitirnacy are superimposed upon each other in the most diverse forms. Precisely for this reaso狱， this typology permits constant social change to be interpreted from viewpoints which on the one hand are informed by our knowledge of the entire historγof mankind, and on the other are oriented by contemporary interests which are related to value-attitudes of various kinds. ldeal-typical constructs composed of a plurality of 霉pure types二 such as the ‘ three pure 巧rpes of legitimate domination', possess a new quality compared with the usage of ideal types in Weber's earlier work. They transcend the dichotomy which exists between ‘structural 句pes' and ‘ types of social change' as they are presented theoretically in W，出er's early methodological essψand applied to speci自c historical phenomena , in particular in his writings on the social and cultural history of agrarian societies in antiquity, and in The Protestant Ethíc. 丁he systems of ‘pure 咛pes' to be found in Economy and Society are in principle structural models which lack the dimension of historical time, or incorporate it only formally, while abstaining from giving it any historic在l specifìci可. Neve主theless in these types precisely those aspects of social orde主 or systerns of domination are accentuated which tend to ir飞ject dynarnism，。芷 con叫 versely stagnation, into the system，也us affecting th

132

γne DevelopmeωfWeb的 Theoreticalldeas

course ofhistoI')几 It is no accident that these dichotomous or pluralistic systems of ‘ pure types' consistently emphasize the dialectical contrasts or rather the antinomic structure of social reality. The ‘ pure types' connected with one another to form an integrated system are informed 均 specific value-attitudes which, in turn, are in constant conflict with one another. 丁his may 检 ìllus明 trated 己y an example. 丁'he capìtalist system is based on the formal p往往ciple of the greatest possible efficiency achieved by a maximum of formal rationalir;人 This forms an insoluble contrast to the substantive principles of equality and human dignity. Weber therefore assi在ned to capitalism substantive irration揣 在li巧， while in terms of 也rmal r主tionality 出e system of capitalism is not surpassed 问r any other type of socio-economic organization. Last 七ut not le在st 出ese systems of ‘pure 可pes' are themselves subject to historical change; al1 ideal-typical constructs may become antiquated, so that the creation of ever new id悦L咛pical constructs- becomes necessa町 (that is to say.‘ die Verg豆nglichkeit al如 ， aber zugleich der Unvermeidlichkeit imm盯 neuer idealtypischer Konstruktionen'). This is true for all historical disciplìnes, as Weber had pointed out as ea向 as 1905 in his ess勾 on'O与 ecti吭旷户丁h fruÍtfulness of ideal-typical constructions for historical research Ìs obvious, although only rarely have attempts been made to write universal history with such a wide ho由on as that presented 均 Max Weber. In a way his 咛pology of ‘pure 可pes' may be seen in nuce as a theoretic在1 model of universal history of enormous scope which is limited only by the level of historical knowledge available in his time.

9

Rationalization and Myth in Weber's Thought

Of all the thinkers of our age Max Weber perhaps described and analysed in 出c most systemanc fashion of all the departure of the modem world, especially of the West, from all magical and mysncal forms of Weltanschauung. 丁hetheme of Entzauberung or the 吐isenchantment' of the world as a secnlar process pervades the whole ofhis sociological work like a leitmonv. The progressive ranonalizarion of all social relationships toge出.er with the increasingly expansive 七ureau町 cratizanon of allsocial insriturions appeared to him to be an inevi始ble fate at least for his own contemporary world. Certainly his personal atritude to the probl创n of ranonalizarion always remained ambivalen t: on the one hand he greeted conrinuing ranonalizarion as a precondirion for the oprimal possible social acrion which is oriented to ulnmate ideal values and 出us as well 岛r maximum individual self-realizarion; on the other hand he complained that in the course of the increasing rarionalizarion and bureaucra也arion of all social relarions the sphere of personal crearive acnon and thought became more and more constricted and that 出.ereby the room for life-conduct based on ulrimate personal values became progressively smaller. But there appeared no prospect of ever really escaping this state of affairs, or at least to pretend there w在s one was 岳eble and insincere. Instead, the individual was cal1 ed upon in all intel1 ectual hon岱ty to confront the basic fact ‘ that he is fated to live in an age that is ignorant of God and 也 which prophets are 邵 l1双n拇knownκn'.飞.1 The obliganon to 帽嗣唰 ranonal life汪e.ιιι'葡精唰-c O 专与Je 倪criv 昵e demonst饺ra刽n 扭on ofthe 始 e validity of 飞w 础 hich 必 iS 岱 1n the fm双圳 al analysis impos s剑ible， remains the only unquesnonable certainty. As Günter Dux put 杖， ifWeber 'perhaps proc1 aüned the end not of re 1igion but or a material 把ligiosity many millennia 01d'，2 也侃出is did not occur in then叙ne of a posirivist belief in science and progress as 出e legirimate heirs to

•

叫

134

The Developmet刊号fWeberJs Theoretical Ideas

conventional forms of religious or mystical worlι飞news. On the contrary, 玩Te始r was only too aware of the limits of scientifìc cognition‘ He was fundamentally sceptical of the possibility of regaining 与r means of modern rational science the lost certainty about 出e meaning of historical reality, in much the same way as this had found a rather more pessimistic resolution in ancient theogonic myth and thena more or less mainly positive one in the salvational cerdtude of Christian eschatology. Alre在dy in his famous essay on ‘ Objectiviry in the soci在1 sciences', dating 击。m the year 1904, he had written: T头e f主te of 在 cultural

epoch whìch has 告aten from 出εtreεof knowledge is to have to recognize that we cannot discern the meanit飞g of world events from even t主εmost complete evidence that their invesnganon provides, but thatwe must be 边le tocreatεit for ourselves , that ‘ world-views' can never be the result of advances in empirical know呻 ledge, that in other words the hlghest ideals which monvate us the most can only ever take effect in conflict with other ideals which are just as sacred to other people as ours are to us. 3

What is more, to a certain extent the problem of meaning is 阳ther accentuated 七y the ac且ievements of modern empi豆cal science. Science may indeed assist in accounting in rational form for the ultimate re在sons 被hind one's action，七ut the indivìdua]'s choice between competing ide在1 valu岱 is there七y rendered even more diffìcult and subjected to even more rigorous self-examination. In spite of all the achievements of science, individuals are left to 出emselves in the end in questions conceming their own value-orientations in view of competing world-views and diverse ‘ ideal and material interests'. 丁hey are required in aIl intellectual sincerity 呻 almost the last substantial relic of Enlìghtenment 在ought 甲 to play out in their own hearts the relendess conflict between competi鸣 ideal values, in a situation of extreme intellectual solitude, or even if need be to ‘ sacrifìce the intellect' 在nd， fully conscious of the ìrrational nature of their own actions , to give themselves over to an expJicit re1igious doctrine 0主 to an absolutely valid principle, or even just to one that is held to 枕边solutely valid , no matter how flagrandy this may contradict everyday reali句· Personaliry for Weber is based in the fìnal analysis on the consistency of on仇 inner relationship to ultimate values and li岳阳meanings. How to make the choice between 在 ltemative ideal values, or even between alternative ethical 飞riewpoints suc主部在re rep妃sented 七y the ethics of responsibiliry on the one hand and by the ethics of conviction on the othe玄， cannot be determined 七yany sort of formal rules. Here science can 在ccomplish even less. 'For specialist science is concemed with technique and teaches technical methods. But, wherever values are at issue, there the problem is projected on to a completely different spiritual plane inaccessible to all science.叫 The ethical standpoint w出er had in mind and which he required of every individualliving in the

Rationalization and Myth in weber's Thought ‘ disenchanted'

13S

world of our present age tended to aim for a maximum of tension 如tween ultimate ethical or even extra咄ethical norms prescribed for individuals and everyday reality; it was to some extent, in his own words , a sort of ‘ hero ethic' which places ‘ fundamental demands on a person to which he is generally incapable of doingjustice other than at exceptional highpoints in his existence'.5 This obligation to be relentlessly candid with respect to the ultimate reasons behind one's own desires and actions and at the same time the conSCl巾 ot臼 3沁snes岱s of 也 thein 时t位ra 瓦ctωabili巧 ofv 刊al如 ue.唰翩-c 嗣.帽. ofideωals only at the cost of other id 击e辜Is often held to 七 bee 叫龟ua对 ally 剖 b inding， can be looked upon as the most radical f己rm at all conceivable of an individualistic and , if it is permissible to speak 出us ，‘spiritually 在ristocratic' material ethic of valu岱， even if only partially formulated. In the theo可 of the individually responsible, active persona1ity exisring within a complex network of material and ideal interests and y机 still oriented towards 岛lal ideal values or world四views， the spheres of values and of empirical reality, of what is and of what ought to be, und盯在o as it were a reconciliation which is in pracrice realizable only in a particular context. This is 在t the corc of his scienrifìc work and , to a lesser degree, of his political w。这 as well. 丁he origins of this 也eo巧 in a Chrisrian religiosity of radical Protestant conformity, combined with idωlism's view of personali可 andwi出 the nihilisric destrucrion in the work ofNietzsche of all material religion in favour of the self-realizarion of great personaliries, seem to be unmistakable. This explains at the same rime why Max Weber remained compararively distant from all convenrional mythological 出oug抽血 its religious just as much as its cultural and, ultim在tely， politic过 forms. Not incidentally, the concept of myth pl町s merely a subordi凶terole in 且1SS0ωlogical wrirings，众如oughm严hical 品rms of secular behaviour are. repeatedly menrioned, nota七ly in connecrion with the rise of world religions. as an important variety of a religious thought operating mainly through sym色。lic means.6 The transposirion of 也e meaning of historical events on to an anthropomorphically conceived divine cosmos characteristic of classical mythology ran somewhat counter to his own concep∞n ofhow religious modes of thought developed from

13 6

The Development ifWeber's Theoretical Ideas

world-views or life-ideals in mythological form, not to mention their symbolic identification with the action and thought of ‘ deified heroesγresulted in his opmlOn ìn a concealment of the fundamental conflicts of values and accordingly ìn a dìlution of the ultìmate existential choice between different ideal values. Indeed, one can ask whether Max Weber did not himself hover on the 也reshold of mythologìcal modes of thought with such a radìcal conception of the role of the ìndividual as a completely selιdependent medìator 七etween quìte separate spheres of reality. It may 执政erall 出at the famous final section of 'Science as a vocation' could point to such a conclusìon, stating as it do岱出at the individual is capable ofliving up to ‘ the demands of today' only if ‘ everyone finds and obeys the devil who holds the fibres of his ve可 life'.8 But thís question should not be pu主sued further here. Myth and magic ap严ar in Weber's w主ítings on the sociology of religion 在S important ea r1y precurso玄s of religious wo主iιviews. Peculiar to both, however, is the fact that they are real与 of an archaic n毒也re only. The breakthro吨h of revolutionary 岛rms of religious behaviour in world histo巧 was in W命er's view achieved in eve可 ca忧 through great prophetsl均 with i岱 characte时ic conjoining in one unitary salvational doctrine of religious norms and radical demands made of a religious discipleship. According ，toWebe 旬 盯主ζ， 让 1 tw 呐 V叫a础smηle 呻t1白;且10 d 悦 峭 嵌1-翩唰翩翩唰翩唰 d cal 且1 ifeι响-conduc口t in the service of religìous duties i血 posed 句 b ya ch喜缸n抬 ssm磊 tic 伊ro P 叩 phe 忧et由 ho ∞ od and a doctrine of otherworldly salvation which demanded that the faithful go beyond the confines of everyday routine that made possible the extraordinary social effects of the higher religions, namelyjudaism and subsequently Christianity. The culmination of this development was reached with Puritanism. Its doctrine of salvation, ultimately and not incidental1y closely connected wit坦白e Old Testament tension between the omnipotence of a single God and the wickedness of the faìthful , and its extremely pointed dogma of pred岱tination， permitted the rise of that ‘great rationalism of systematically ethic址 life-conduct'，9 the revolutionary consequences of which changed socle巧， and which Weber never ceased to admire. Beside the rise of modem, production…intεnsive， market-oriented capitalism, it w在$在bove all else 由e principle

Rationalization and Myth ín 昂乍ber's Thot管如

137

With the ‘innerworldly ascetism' ofPuritanism, and thereby the systematic rationalization of the whole of personal life-conduct in pursuit of stringent otherworldly religious ideals in stark contrast to everyday routine , a threshold of world叩historical significanc民主s it were, had been crossed, from which Weber would have viewed it as intellectually false to want to retreat. Mythical forms of world-views which strove to reconcile the characteristic tension between the 'transcendental' and everyday reality by sym如lical means were thus for him quite unaccepta七le. This circumstance can be graphically demonstr在ted at 出e level of his per印刷1 biography. To begin with it can be assert付出at although according to his own admis甲 sion he felt ‘ religiously neutral' he was cenainly deeply indebted to Puritan religiosity. He once expressed 出is condition eminently clearly to Adolf von Harnack in a text which dealt with the pro剖em of assessing Lutheranism: ‘ the fact that our nation neve几 in any forr刀， underwent the education of rigorous asceticism is the source of everythi吨也at 1 fìnd odious 扫 in 川i让t叫(矶 仙 ω f门well (非 e孜 m np 掉 has如 i必sa叫 挝 d de叶 句).1门i 丁he ε仪x d 挝 础E阳 咄 e 眩t towl仨挝尬 n 1让ich 监 Weber 趾 fiE罚e吨 守伊 q ue 创nt由 l与 yid 命 en 低 n汉由主 ti tifì 证泊 fìedι， notwith the religious strictness ofPuritanism, but rather with its rationalization oflifeconduct in the service of otherworldly life-ideals that are considered irrevocable, as was embodied in perfect form in Puritan theology, could hardly be greater. This also determined 唱reber's attitude to such political or spiritual tendencies 也就 saw in the establishment of a new myth or the revitalization of traditional myths a way out of 也e problems of 出epresenιOfinterestin 出is connection is the controversy 飞.vi th Stefan George and the George circle, which reached a climax in the summer of 1910 in the sense that Weber's postulate of the rationa1izing force of the Protestant ethic was itselfmade a targ仅 for the criticism of modern ra tionalistic culture by a student of Gωrge' s.12 Through the interces呻 sion of Gundolf it even led to sever主1 meetings between Weber and Stef主n George. Max Weber had great personal respect for Stefan George as a writer operating with the emotive m相ns of expression of a sensually composed diction of great expressive power, yet 且is claim to have a prophetic mission and a natural gl丘 for leadership seemed just as arrog

138

The Development 吃fWeber's Theoretical Ideas

we have already seen, he counted the Communist Man乒sto among those texts which created a powerful political my也. Historically perhaps the most signincant form of such political myth creation, Sorel's theory of the general strike, is not in fact dir昭ly mentioned anywhere in Weber's work. B1.lt Weber did take syndicalist ideology in all its forms to task when it was expounded to him 七'y Ro七erto Michels in 1909. 14 As an a岱tude founded in the ethics of conviction which is well aware of the empirical improbabili巧， of really causing a social upheaval 飞Nith anarchist techniques of action. yet which nevertheless persists in the belief that the existing system is so unjust that one is compelled to fight against it without regard to considerations of what is politically realistic, the S'沪ldicalist doctrine was respectable 在lthough， in Weber's personal view, dubious; a可 mythological elevation of syndicalist strategy, perhaps in the form of an idealization of the general strike as Sorel intended 泣， would have seemed to him an inappropriate intermingling of the normative sphere with that of re啼onsible po1itics, at least in so far. as the ‘ myth of the general s位ike' is used as a power source of the revolutionary movem佣t. Syndicalisrn was , as Weber ventured,‘either an idle whim of intellectual romanrics and . . . undisciplìh叫 workers . . . or else a re1igion of conviction which is justified even if it never provides an ideal 岛r the future 也at ís "attainabl矿" 15 Incomparably more severe was We恼's verdict on that form of political myth formation which at the start of the First 留or1d War adopted the ‘ ideas of 19 问" which, in opposition to the ideals of 17 句， intended to inflate the German au出oritarian tradítions of Prussian-German convention into an ideal of a natural片就tuned，‘0职位， and thus more human way of life and therefore at the same time to create a myth of the world-historical superiority of the Prussian喘German authoritarian social model. Weber saw in this little more thanp在thetic literary verbiage which soughr to avoid reali呼 16 τhe eÐ也rts of the pub1isher Eugen Diederichs in a series of con岳rences at Burg La uenstein in Thuringia in the early summer and autumn of 1917 to kindle a revitalized German national consciousness which would be oriented essential与 towards romantic standards of life belo吨 to a 如nilar ca吨。可­ These aspirations tended to be extremely anti-rationalist, anti蛐modernist and anti-capitalist, and at the same time to be committed

Rationalízation and Myth in Weber 's Thought

139

through the revolt of men of intellect against the prevailing materialism and egalitarianism and through the resumption of spiritual pursui毯， in such a way that the German Reformation would reach fruitionP Max Maurenbrecher in p在rticular added a political note as he ca l1ed for a revìval of the ìdea of the German state derived 丘om the spirit of German idealism and German 丑omanticism which would prove itself far superior to the ‘ democratic indiviι ualism' origìnating in the Enlightenment. At the conferences in Burg Lauen由 stein Weber did not pass over any opportunity of rigorously opposìng political mythologizing such as this. Similar y he criticized the 在nti-rationalist preconceptions of the Youth Movement which w在s also pursuìng alternative mytho咀 logical designs to bourgeois-capitalist society.18 Finally reference may also be made to Max Weber's address 'Sciellce as a vocatio矿， which represents at the same time a critical dialogue with the irrationalist tendencies in large sections of 出e organized German student body, and ìndeed in the inte1ligentsia in general.丁his address was delivered, as we now know, as early asγNovember 19ηto the Federation ofLiberal Students (Freistudentischer Bund) in Munich. 19 Weber's categorical assertion that science was not capable of pro飞riding the justification for values but could only assist the individual in ‘ giving an account to himself of the ulnmate meaning of his own conduct' was given an 吨ual1y cool reception as his criticism of the expectant atntude of students who looked 如 their professors as ‘ leaders' rather than ‘ teachers' , despite the fact that it was precisely the latter group of people who definitely did not have a cal1ing for su能esting or even pro飞riding solutions to questions of values. Even less well received was Weber's polemic against ‘ the modem intellectualìst romanticism of the irrational',20 which in 出e revival of m忡ical 阳g讪opedfor 始lvanon from the s伽i吨 ranonalism of sc岳阳 wruch refused to provide answers to the genuinely 飞rital issues facing ma址ind. Erich Kah1er, a student of Stef二n George, in a book on The Vocation ofSdence that was deliberately bent on controversy. later explained w且at a generanon of students inclìned to neo-romannc modes of thought really wanted to hear from ,I

MaxWeber户

On the other hand, Weber reached the remarkable condusion in 出eve咛 same lecture 也就 at the end of a ‘ process of disenchantment contìnued over 曲。usands of years ofWestem civiliza

140

The Development of~彻r's Theoretical Ideas

prophetic-sounding conclusion 出挝‘ many old gods, demysrified and thus in the shape of impersonal forces, are rising up from their graves.τhey strive to gain power over our 1ives and again th巧 resume their etemal struggle with one anothe俨 It almost 附i:ns as ifhe meant by this that humanity a丘er a thousand years of emanciparion 丘om mythical 趾ms of ontological validarion had retumed to its inirial condirion - namely, a retum to mythological ways of thinking and convers吨， alrhough maybe on a higher level. Or, to put it anotherw町， mankind had reached the end of a univer始i ‘process of rarionalization and socializarion' in which M 在xWebεr was inclined to discem the fundamental morive force behind the developmen艺 of the Westem world , and th拭 another open-ended process was about to be begun whicn would again be propelled by mythiα1 forces , though perhaps on 在 higher level. To answer this quesrion it is necessa巧 toex在mine more closelywhat theoreri四 cal status the idea of rariona1ization as the basic central morifin Westem histo巧 actually possessed in Max Weber's work. Earlier interpretario部 were in the main unswer飞ringly ready to view the mtionalizariol1 concept 豁出.e axis of universal-historical development along which as it were a unilinear reconstruction of a11 past history 放在:ht up to the present could 检阳也lded. 25 How机 ever, Weber repeatedly w在s qu让e explicît in poinring out that in his ideal-可pical construcrions , not to menrion his studies on the< sociology of religion, he never had as his sole 。毛ject the development of a substanrive theo巧 of t出tory or even just of a general model of 也ecourseof冒出tem history. At best he regarded as feasible only hypo也erical systematizarions V'li也 the hèlp of which certain culturally 约伊边cant characterisrics of the historical process could be portrayed with a high degree of accuracy. 在lese words of caution have 七een largely ignored 均 the great rr吨。rity of interpretarions ofhis work‘ None the less, many of his texts, parricularly 岳om the early period up unril about 叩门， including the older secrions of Economy and Socie亨， admit at least in part of such a reconstruction of骂restem histo吓 It seems, however, that Webe室's interes t in 在 reconstrucrion of segments of past reality on the basis of ideal输typical process models, a classic example of which can be found in The Protestant Ethic , progressively declined and that, accordingly, even the studies of the great non棚Chrisrian world religions were

Rationalization and Myth in Weber's Thought

141

of social or political organization, is no lon在er presented as the qllintessence of one and the same historical process bllt is merely retained as a tendenti址， almost pllrposeflll procedural form which can occllr essentially in the most diverse historical formations and in thεmost varied of epochs, even inclllding the modern period, and can even be empirically auchentic在ted. In the later versions ofthe ‘three pure types oflegitimate domination' the order of types of domina叩 tion is hence reversed. Charisma is no longer an ideal-typical scheme for the jllstifìcation of spiritual, religiolls or political domination , characteristic of the early forms of hllman social order; instead it becomes a llniversal catego巧­ Charisma is now viewed quite simply as thεsource of creative action oriented to personal ideal values of an otherworldly kind.ln the same 飞rvay the concept of rationality takes on a new dimension; indeed, greater emphasis is increasingly given to the notion that rationalization is possible in relation to highly diverse ideal vallles or religious world-views and accordingly that it can no longer be claimed only for the type of formal rationa 1ity specifìc to the 前est which 1St佼 布 削rllm m 宦附 缸 ε ent 缸时 lt臼 al幽缸-幽幽幽恬 results in an ins sωOCl扫al 凶 institutions. This new dimension of 在 systematic concept formation no longer consistent with 出e developmental ideal types predominant in his earlier works was not fully llnfolded throughollt Max Weber's later work but was plainly recognizable all the same. A clear realiz双ion of this fact is certainly somewhat impeded by the patchwork nature of 出e texts in the editions avail均le to us nowadays.2ó This will be outlined only briefly here, fìrst in relation to the concept of 'charisma' and then in relation to the concept of ‘ rationalization', which is divested of its characteristics as a theory related to a particul在r period of history and instead is promoted to 也e antinomical conceptual twin of charismaP At thè end of 出e chapter on 'Political and 且ierocratic domination' - a text already committed to paper before 1913 and still solely concerned with historical mani岳阳∞ns of religious charismatic forms of domination - Max Weber speaks of ‘也e Age of Enlightenment belief that, if allowed to run its cOllrse unrεstrained， with the help of divine providence and because the individual knows his own interests best himsel f, relatively spe在king at lea风 individual reason must prodllce th

The Development cýWe如此 Theoretical Ideas

142

the chapter on ‘丁ypes of domination' , charisma is in fact still assigned princi皿 pa l1ytoa pr rationalistage as a form of political or religious domination, but it is ascribed the quality of a revolutionary force whic茧， in contrast to the ‘ equally revolutionary force of ratio , could be a 'trans岛rmation from within, w且lC坠， 如rn of misery or of rapture', entailed 磊a transformation of the main orientation of convictions and action and a completely new orientation of all attitudes to eve巧 individuallife-form and to the "world" in general'.2吉 At the same time Weber considered a reorientation of charisma away from domination to be suited to providing the basis fo主 an empirical ju优ification of a novel, nondogmatic theo町 of 'plebiscitarian leader democracy'. In the end it is charisma and rarionalization which in general, as dichotomously interrelated forces , constitute social change. Charisma (w且ich according to Weber's sociological theo可 to some extent occupies the position ofboth Judaic prophetship and Puritan asceticísm, oriented to imperarive otherworldly norms, in the prehistory of the modern world) is assigned the role of the inno晴 vative element 呐thin 出e historical process; it represe技ts as it were the poi低 whεre personality is imposed on to the empirical process ofhistory. Rarionalizarion, on the other hand , either operates as instrumental-rational adaptation to pre-exisring values, intεre掘 and circumstances which can be designated as binding, or else operates circuitously 勾 way of the intellectualizing of the cognirion of r四li巧， itself. Here as a rule it uses the instruments of bureaucraric organizarion for the oprimum fulfilment of i岱 respecrive 0与创ves. The concept of rarionalization 1ikewise undergo部 a more differenriated interpretarion ill Weber's later work; it frees itselffrom ev叫 historical reifìca…tion such as appears parricularly in the interpretation ofWestern histo巧 as a unilinear process of 吐isenchantment' of a quasi -evolurionist nature. Rather there is an inc陀革singly precise elaborarion ofhow there can be, and indeed was , rarionalizarion in pursuit of the most diverse ideals and that such rarionalizations tεnded as a matter of course to come into conf1i ct with one another. Charismaric dominarion can and does as a rule make use ofbureaucratic techniques in order to maximize the effect of its acrions, just as was the case with Judaic prophetism, Weber's grear typical example of rationalization of li岳阳 conducte

•

Rationalízation and Myth in Weber's Thought

143

con位íct wíth a mu1típlicity of possible forms of ‘m在terial rationali咛" which is

oriented to defìnite material ideal values or ideal interests more closely specifìable only in the concrete historical instance. 1万ith the distinction between ‘ formal' and ‘ materÎal' rationali巧， the more explicit and cle在rly expounded historical unequivocalness of the concept of rationalizarion in Weber's earlier wrirings, and with it also the concept of ‘dis时 enchantment', essentially disappears. 丁his is why it 出us appears impossible to view the essence ofMax Weber's sociological theory as an evolurionistic reconstruction of past history. whether it be that of the West (as Schluchter suggests) or else of world history in gen衍al (as argued by Tenbruck). 1t attempts to be 出IS only in the sense of a theo巧， for 也e meaningful interpretation of what is basically a pluraJi ty of histories, though at the level of knowledge about the whole of the past hisω巧 of mankind. Acring as the imp1icit guidin在 thoughtin 出is und出taking is the quesrion ofhow freedom. as a precondirion for the selfrea1ization of the personality. is possible at all in 在 socle可 dominated by the constant rivalry betw优n materi过 and ideal intere邸， but also in a world increasingly assuming 也e form of an ‘ iron cage' of future serfdom. At this point the discussion has turned full circle. Max Weber's 也eo咛 of rarionalizarion and 飞lisenchantment'，在s a central problem ofhistory in general, is to be understooo in the fìnal analysis not as a theo巧， to explain the triumph of modern rational thought over myth. magic, charismaric irrationality and tradi阳 tionally legitimated orders, but as a fund在mental phenomenon of universal history. Even major manifestarion and movement which occurred fìrst as phenomena explicitly outside everyday routine is subject to the process of 吐lsen­ chantment' and rationalization. If ‘ disenchantment' can mean many 也ings， according to whether it is spiritual or material ideals from which the rationalization of personalli仕-conduct or of the social order results, then the theory of rationalízation presents itself in a new light. In principle, rationalization cannot point to any means of escape from the fundamental irrationalities of reality, and modern science is capable of doing this least of all , according to Weber. Rather, these irrationalities are o n1y displaced on to a more deep-seated level of reali巧f where 也巧 emerge .in even sharpe

144

?如 Development 吃fWeber's Theoreticalldeas

world-views - alongside and in competition with that apparently or genuinely pure1 y ìnstrumental 'formal rationality' responding sol e1y to the sheer pressure of adaptation, which ultimate1y represents a reification of long since institutional位ed innovatory forces , although for its part it owes its existence to a combination of creative charisma and material rationalization in keeping wi出 the former's chosen objectives. Seen in such a perspective, Weber's initially so peculiar statement about the ‘ many ancient gods' who,‘demystified and thus in the shape of impersonal forces' , recommence 血elf ‘eternal struggle' makes sense once again. 32 In institutionalized form , in the shape ofbureaucratic politiα1 or social movements , the individual is confronted by just that multiplicity of competing forces which people of创rlier epochs not infrequently tried to explain in mythological terms. In spite ofhis basic affirmation of the principle of rationallife-conduct as an essential e1emenr of a personali巧r which is at peace with itself, and not\vithstandi吨 the fact 出at the secular process of modernization and rationalization put the world at the disposal of man's whim , in the sense that it macle thé world causally explicable, Weber considered the insurmountable tensÌon berween supra-mundane ideal章， whether they be arciculated in magical, mythical or re1igious forms , as an essential fact of human eXÌstence. His attitude may be described as that of a thinker who has 部 it were thought 也rough the principles of the Enlightenment to their ultimate condusion and freed them 岳。m all naÏve hopes in the all-powerful force of rationality as a purely emancipatory factor. This made him adopt a stance in the end which, although in principle on the side of rationali巧， still systematically included the whole range of 也e irrational and thus also the various forms of mythical thought as possible components of reality. Personally Weber regarded 在 return to a mythological understanding of the world , in the sense of an abandonment of the stringent rules of rational science, to be impracticable; but, whether it was a question of deline在 ting those twilight regions from which all human conduct derives its motivation and in which scholarship not least of all fìnds its own basic intellectual inspiration, it was not just coincidence that from his pen flowed images which originated in ancient mythology. His work cannot in any case be viewed as the fìnal t

10

The Two Dimensions of Social Change in Max Weber's Sociological Theo巧

The growing interest in Max Weber's sociology which is 伪scrva己le today must be due, amo吨。由er things, to the fact that it explicitly or implicitly encom剿­ 严sses the historical dimension of socìal reality, even in its purely theoretical elements. It may well be said thar his sociological theo巧 derives its s位ength from the fact 出在t it is unfolded against the backclot且 of universal histo巧­ Web时's writings are full of important insights based upon historical observaide饵，革al-咛plca过1 ∞ c on 肌ce 守 ptualiz 垃 za 拍 tions are of considerable value for 挝 hIS← tions. His 挝 tωonca过1 衍 res拇ea 缸rch， and, indeed, they were meant to be so. However，也ere is still consider功le confusion 动out Max Weber's notion of social and historical change, although 也is issue is central to his sociological 也ought. In part 也is is due to 出e fact that Weber never presented his views on the historical process in a systematic manner, for methodological re在sons which 1 have discussed elsewhere. 1 Instead we find in his work a great variety of ideal畔typical reconstructionsof particular segments of universal history which he considered to be significant from a pre何时翻出y vantage-point, given the fact that modern indi飞ridualistic society was at risk of being overwhelmed by the 仰in forces of bureaucracy and formal rationalization. In this respect, mention must be made, in particular, of Weber's socio-econOlnic studies on 扭tiqui巧， his studies on The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism ， 如Ìs famoÍls treatise The Ci号， and , above all, his Sociol管吃f World Rel告'Íons. Furthermore, the first section of Economy and Socie亨， the casuistry of the system of ‘pure 咛pes飞 which deliber喘 ately transcends historical rea1ity inasmuch as all direct references to the dimension ofhistorical time have been el出rinated， may be seen as a forma1ized model of the various po1itcial and social formations to be found 扫 universal history. 阳

146

The Development 吃fWeber's TheoreticalIdeas

Usual与 Weber's

norion of the historìcal process is described as an essenrially uni1inear model of the progressive unfolding of 白e rarionalist culture of the Westor，在s Wolfgang Schluchter put ìt more recently, a 'developmental histo巧' of Western culture, which is characterized, above all, by the progressive rationalization of all forms of social interacrion and the inc忧郁ing 吐isenchant­ ment' of all otherwor1dly value. .atritudes. Hov咄咄， it should be kept ìn mind that Max Weber had consistently refused to develop a s由stanrive the。可 of universal history , such as had been done 恃 many SOCl址 scienrists before 坦m and, ìndeed , after him. Although it may be said that hìs work cont在ms many e1ements of a subtanrive theo町 of world hìsto可 or， at any rate , ofthe hìsto巧fof the West, we intend to show that thìs was not at all Weber's intention. On the contra巧， hìs hìstorical sociology deliberately abstained from dev e1 0ping a suι stanrive scheme of universal hìstory, or of Western 1出to可. Instead, Weber intended to develop systems of ideal 可pes， and of ‘pure 可pes' whìch would allow the meaningful interpretation of social processes，七oth past and pr部ent， 击。m the vantage-point of parricu]ar 'ideal vall1es', thereby esta七1ishing their Kulturbedeu阳 mkeit (cultural significance).2 Hypotherical extrapolarions 必out the furure of 飞XTestern culture condition the way in which the phenomena are analysed without any substanrive evaluation. lt would appear in the debate about Weber's norion of world-historical deve1 0pment conducted 均 Wolfgang Schluchter, Friedrich 丁口en 由 bruck， Wi淄:廷毡 he le1m Hennis 泛 气 We 呻 be 盯r'、s 巾t}且1ε O主e 创tica址1 posi rion ha 豁s not been 严 pal过 d su在岳ìcie 创 ent attenrion. It would appear that in this debate a neo明evolurionist， a neo再idealist and perhaps an anthropological ìnterpretarion of his work are all at loggerheads with one anotl比汇 WolfgangSd也lchter， the main exponent of the neo啊。lurioni叫OSI­ rio役， has undertaken 在 wide阳ranging reconstruction of Weber's norion of Western histo巧 which focuses, in particular，。双 his Socíology 吃fWorldRel告ions. Althoug忌 Schlucht叹 takes considerable care to steer clear of older evolutio出st theories (which 1叫 been heavily criricized by Weber hìmse屿， he nevertheless defines Weber's sociology as a ‘ social histo巧。f the West' which must be seen as 嘉‘parrial theory of evolurion，飞mth a realistic intent'.3 lts essenrial theme is, according to Schluchter, the emergence of the modern rarionalisric world civili …

Thc Two DimensÎons ofSocial Change

147

especially, when weber deals with non-Western cultures, notably the great non呻骂r estern world religions , such 刮目induism， Buddhism or Judaism. In this context Schluchter emphasizes 动。ve all the role of ‘ material'黯 ther than specifìcally religious interests , referring to Weber's famous dictum that ‘no艺 ideas , but material and ideal intere拙， direc t1 y govern men's social conduct'.4 Schluchter does not deny that the 'world-views' created by the great world religions guided the actions of men on to fundamentally different paths. But he stresses that these ‘wodd-views' 在re not just independent vari在bles but largely dependent upon economic and social factors. In order to substantiate this interpretation 如e again refers to a rather late text, namely the Introdtiction to the Collected Essays on the Sociology 吃fbi告íon. Here Weber does indeed speak of a reciprocal relationship between a particular ‘worlιview' and the ‘ economic ethics' (Wirtschaftsgesínnung) derived from it on the one ha时，在nda p在rticular socio-economic order on the other.5 T始s line of reasoning is clearly directed against Friedrich Tenbruck's attempts to reformul在te Weber's thco叮 of Western culture in a neo-idealist manner. On thεbasis of a new critical interpretation of the texts (which, however, did not fu11y stand up to the criticìsms which followed) Ter出ruck 0与ected to the view that Weber must be seen primarily as a theorist of the proccss of rationalizanon of the modern world，部 had been 在rgued Înter alía 七'y Rein且在rd Bend也ú Rather than considering rationalizanon and bureaucratizanon of social insntutions as Weber's main intere筑， he emphasizes Weber's continuing interest in the autonomous role of ideal , particular1y religious factors. Accordingly he argues that it is not Economy and Soci仰， as has conventionally been seen to be 世 case， but 出e Sociol如'01 World Religions which forms the ve可 core of his work, and it is in these essays that Weber's nonon of 出e process of world history is expressed in a defininve form. lt is not the process of r在tionalizanon 在s such, and certainly not in its reduction to the developmental histoηof modern Western civilization, which is , according to Tenbruck, his main 也eme; 自由.er it is the original, innovative role of religiot沾边eas， followed 衬出eir gradual ranonalization and disenchantment due to the immanent logic of ranonalization to which all religious doctrines tend to be su专jected in the course of time. ‘古 By disc ∞ ove 创d 位 t力2吨 r陀el且19 岳i

148

了'he Development qfWeb的 Theoretical fd，ω

Yet another interpretation has been put forward by Wilhelm Hennis, who in doing so 纪飞iÌves a line of reasoning already to be found in the work ofSiegfried Landshut and Karl Löwith. Hennis argues that Weber's universal-historical studies have one central theme , namely which 可peofhuman 汝ing is likely to thrive best in a particular socio-economic and cultural system. lndeed , Weber always tended to focus on 也e question which types of life-conduct (Lebensführung) are favoured most under particular social and economic condirions, and which not. This implies , of course，也at different socieries pracrise different forms of social selecrion or, rather, give preference to certain types of human beings. This social mechanism normal1y operates quite independently of the policies of governments; rather it ìs dependent on 也e socio-economic and cultural condirions in a given society which in f1uence the individ ual lifeconduct of most if not a11 of the individuals belonging to it. 丁且is interpretarion, which may rightly be called an anthropological one, objects on principle to a11 reconsrructions of Weber's sociological 也eo巧 in eith时 an evolurionist or a teleological form，如ce 也s would res由 in falsi吗ring the key diChotomy bet\veen ‘ personality and life orders' (‘die Pers∞lichkeit und die Lebensordnungen'). In order to substantiate rhis view Hennis put considerable effort into a new interpretarion ofWeber's earlier 飞Nrirings which are srill prim红过y historical in 削ure. Yet it seems that although this approach rouches upon an important aspect ofWeber's thought it is not likely to provide us vlÌ出 the key ωa comprehensive interprera∞n ofhis promised 肌iological 出ought.8 It would appear that none of these 叩proaches can fully do jusrice to Web肘's intenrions in his sociological analyses of the world-historical procεss or, to be more precise, his an在lyses of signifìc在nt segments of the past. Nor do 也巧在lve 在 S在tisfactory answer to the quesrion wheth位 social change is brought about in history primarily by ideal and religious factors 响 to put it in Web的 own terminology,‘other-worldly' (ausseralltäglíche) events - or by socio-economic conditions, in other words, the dynamics of social str在rifìcarion and institurional structures which tend to condition people's 在crions. ln his earlier writings at any rate Weber himself seems to have been rather an也iguous on this point. In his studies on agriculturallabour e

了'he 百仰 Dimensions 手"Social

Change

149

which had 七een in existance for centuries and had 七een based upon a convergεnce of the economic interests of workers and landlords , replacing it 均 formally 丘ee labour with 出εinevitable consequence that class con f1 ict was from now on a dominant feature of social relanons. At the same time, however , We七er pointed out that the ideal monve of obtaining a greater degree of freedom likewise played an important role as an independent factor inducing agriculturallabour to seek a new livelihood by rnigrating to Berlin, to the industrial regions in the West, or possibly even overseas. In Díe Agrarverhältnisse im Altertum Weber came the closest ever to using a Marxist model of explananon. The system of land division and the modes of production largely based upon enslaved labour appe盯 to determine the course of events, whereas human will and human action are entirely conditioned by these material factors. In the famous study on The Ci守 in antiquity and early modern Europe the key question is whether and how formally free labour had gradually emerged as an ennrely new form of social organization，在nd， in this connection, where and under which conditions an autonomous urban bourgeoisie developed. 丁his is the central theme around which he assembled an eno主mously rich m在ss ofhistorical evidence. Without 快ìng in any way an evolutiona巧I scheme, The City culrninates in an analysis of the city of medieval central Europe which, owing to a political confratern泣ation of the 七urghers - the so酣called conjurationes 叩 had wonindεpendence from their former territoriallandlords. Economic interεsts appear to have played a dominant role as well. Urban liberties, whether usurped or generously granted by territorial rulers, were largely respected on econornic grounds. but occasìonal1y ideal motives came to play a role too. Religìon is assigned a su如rdinate role; Weber took care to emphasize that the city saints were worshipped largely in order to provide legìtimacy for the newly 叫uired urban libernes. On 也e other hand We岛盯 assigned particular (a时， on the grounds ofhistorical evidence, undue) weìght to the ro~e played 问r consprracles or revolutionary actions by the burghers against the territorial rulers, be they 记ngs， princes or ecclesiastical powers. The idealìst theme of emancipation from feudal patronage is, according to Weber, an independent variable at work in history, notwithstan

ISO

The Develop附刚吃fWebe作 Theoreticalldeas

view, which he himself regarded as a refutation of Marx's theory of historical materialism(n悦， perhaps， entirelyjustifìed ifwe bearin mind th在tin 且istheoryof pnma叩 accumulation Marx argued in part on surprisingly similar lines). l\l In Max Weber's studies on Hinduism, Buddhism and Judaism (he never paid detailed 主ttention to Islam) we fìnd a far more complex ir汉errelationship of religious and socio-economic f:主ctors. Here too, Weber sees the origins of these secular religious movements as belonging to the realm of ‘otherworldly' (ausser甲 alh每lích) events. 丑 削.el峙 k i培g 挝 韬10阳 吭rtuo均 and indivi 吭idl叫 ch泊磁 lan 缸nsm ma弘， 严 盯 p a衍剧玄仅均 t froml黯 Zηla吃 gl立c， partly 在llying themselves with it, play a decísive innovative role. In his studies on Hinduism and Buddhism, for instance, he addressed himself explicítly to the problem of whether religious factors are an independent variable. He pointed out that a merely economic explanation of the emergence of the Hindu caste system or the origins of the doctrine of karma was not enough. He argned that both were created by a rational system of e在ical thought- thε dharma doc:;:trine 叫 bnt not at all by economic conditions of whatever sor t. 11 However, the manner in which these religious impulses were being trans也rmed into 纪1igions movements mnst be 反往ibuted primarily, if not exclnsively, to socío-economic factors. This is the c主se in particular as regards the process of institutionalization and 也e gradual development. of C捡破ly defìned dogmatic systems to which these relìgious movements are irresistibly snbjected in the course of time. It is ìn this institutionalized form that religious doctrines ex时cised enormons influence on the socíal system around them. As Weber put it, they often determined the developmental path which a particular culture was to follow fo主 centuries. In the case of Hinduism, for instance, in Weber's opi出侃， the role of the brahmi邸， the Vedic caste ofìntellectuals, was predominant: they exercísed 在 decísive influence. Likewise in the case of Buddhism it was the small class of Chinese bureaucratic literati which determined the future cour忧。f events. On the basis of these fìndings it would 在ppear impossible to resolve defìni响 tively the controversial issue ofhow far Max Weber regarded ideal and religious factors as independent or, in the fìnal analysis , as decísive variables in the historical process. 到e persistently emphasized the key ro …·

The Two DimensÎons ofSocial C妇 nge

15 1

experience shows that the ‘worlι飞rìews' created by religious movements served such purposes, ìn conjunction with other institutional and economic factors pointing in the same direction. This shows cle主主ly that Weber did not come down on the side of an idealist interpretation ofhisto巧， however veiled, as Tenbruck would have it; rather he eventually opted, after a good deal of uncertainty , for a two-dimensional model of social change. On the one hand he deliber在tely emphasized such types of social change as are initiated by the innöv就ìve deeds of great personalities whose actions originate in ‘ otherworldly' value-attitudes of a most stringent nature. On the other hand he repeatedly pointed out that social processes are largely determined by rigid institutional structure乌七e they social, economic or even ideal; individuals are usual1y helpless against them, and , as a rule, their 1ifeconduct is largely determined 七y them, if only because invari边ly their economic interests point towards adaptation and conformity wi位 the given social order. lt was only late in his li岳 that Weber succeeded in defìnitively formulatit电脑飞rìews on the two alternative forms in 飞Nhich social change operates in hisω巧， in a passage inserted by him in 1920 into 且必咀inleitung in die Wirtschaftsethi主 der Weltreligionen' 忡 already mentioncd): ‘ Interests (色。由 material and ideal), not ideas, directly govern human action. But the world-views created 七y "ideas" very often set the points of the rails along which the course of action proceeded, propelled 如y the dynamic ofinterests.' I 2 丁坠is is to say that social change is initiated 均 actions which may be motivated.by 雀ideal' or 七y ‘m在terial' ìnterests. Idωlist motìves enter into the arena only in an indirect w在.y; they determine the directìon in which a given social system will develop further, driven forward 句 inherent dynamics ofìts own. In the following pages 1 shall 衍y to reconstruct this two-dimensio掠过 model of social and historical change in a systematìc mannet, with reference to Weber's later works (which belong to the same period as the passage just quoted). M以 Weber's sociology abounds in dichototnies in the constructìon of idωl types and ideal蛐typical classifìcations. 1t is not diffìcultωfìnd equivalents (0 也e dichotomy of'ideal' and ‘ material' interests, whic礼 as we have seen, essentìally determine the course of human ac的n.‘Value-ratìonal' and ‘ instrumentalr在tìonal' actìon apparently form

15 2

The Development ofWeber's Theoretical Ideas

and information provided by rational scientifìc knowledge. But this way of calculating the means tends to restrict the choice of goals as well , inasmuch as instrumental-rational action will always try to make sure that the desired goal will be achieved; this , however , requires that the particular goals must be within reach, in practical terms. lt follows from this that instrumentally oriented action will always favour adaptation to given social conditions , rather than challenging them. As Weber puts it himsel f, instrumental-rational action always results in a ‘ deliberate adaptation to given situations in terms of selι interest\13 To put it otherwise , instrumental-rational action always gives preference to ‘ formal rationali可" that is to say it always seeks optimally to exploit the rules and regulations of an existing social system. On the other hand, value-rational action is oriented by ‘non-eve可day' or ‘otherworldly' values which are regarded subje付1吨， as absolutely binding; therefore considerations conditioned by thc concrete situation and the chances of success în vîew of exterior factors are of secondary importance. ln the fìnal analysis , value-rational or, as it rnight be called also,‘substantive-rational' forms of social conduct are always induced by charismatic value-attitudes, or else by charismatic deeds which confer a concrete meaning upon such value-attitudes and provide them, in the shape of the followers devoted to these values , with an institutional embodiment in society. ln contrast to instrumental-rational action, all charismatically oriented 可pes of social action are , in a specifìc sense, directed by the inner self of the acting person，时， as Weber puts it, theyare ‘ innengeleitet'. Charisma manifests its revolutionary powe巳 which amounts to a challenge to eve可day rea1i町，‘from within, from a central metanoia [that is to say ‘ fundamental change'] in the conduct of the followers飞 14 The impact of these two alternative 可pes of social action upon a given social order is altogether differen t. Charismatically directed action is an innovative force , and potentiallyit mayinduce innovation, andeven revolutionarychange of world-historical magnitude. By contrast, instrumental-rational action is primarily oriented by material interests and inclined to operate within the restraints of the given situation in order to ensure optimal success. Therefore it fos

The Two Dimensions ifSocial Change

153

ínner dríving force stemming from ideal or religious value吐出 tudes 七ecause 也e dynamic of material interests in itself guarantees its steady advance. 15 As religious movements become instituùonalized in the course of time , with groups of intellectuals declaring themselves the movements' spokesmen and the authorized interpreters of their doctrines, similar processes of rationalization can 七e observed. The religious virtuosi who provide the initial charismatic impulses are usually soon replaced by an institutionalized priesthood which ensures that the doctrine which 出ey teach to their followers is interpreted and progressively unfolded in a consiste时， that is to say, 'rational' manner. Howeverirrational their content. s这ch religious messages are gradually transformed into a traditionalist doctrine, and as this is further unfolded in a sysrematic manner 衬出e intellectuals who 在re considered its authoritative interpreters it eventually 松comes a thoroughly radonalist system of thought which has its direct correlation in the institutionalized body administering the religious doctrine to the rank and fìle of the fo l1owers 如 a rationalized form. Ascan 七ededuced 丘。m these observations, instrumental.…rational and valu rational action represent two entire1 y different or, to be more precise, antagonistic principles. 丁hey correspond to two equally antagonistic forms of life-conduct. To put it briefly, the former is ruled 七y the principle of adaptation to given reality, the latter determined 句 value-在ttitudes which as a rule derive from ‘non时everyd在y' beliefs. It is possible to elaborate this two叫dimensional model of social change further, on the basis ofWeber's 1在ter writings, notably the casuistry of‘pure 叩pes' which we find in Economy and Soεiety and those passages ofhis essays on the Socio/好吃fWorld Religions which are at about the same level of development of his sociological thought. 丁he figure reproduced overleaf may be helpful in further elucidating this argument. We consistendy find in Max Weber's sociological work two fundamentally ditTerent notions ofhow social change may come 必óut. Al出ough in empirical reality we find 出em almost 在lways operating in cor飞junction with one another, they are qualitatively different and have entirely different social conse电uences. ‘ Ideal interests' which have their roots in particular ‘world.…views' lead to value

•

The Devel学mentof~岁eber's Theoretical Ideas

154

enrirely new social developments. It goes without saying that this may happen in extremely diversè ways , and on alllevels of sociallife, and may take rather different forms , extending from a 'retreat from the world' to resdess ‘innerworldly' acrivity. However, it may bring about the initial impulses for social innovations of considerable magnitude or, to put it another way, induce social change of substantial proportions. The two dimensions of social change

value-rational change

instrumental-rational change

otherworldly world-views

innerworldly worlιvlews

ideal interests

material interests

su七stantive棚rarionallife-conduct

formal-rationallife-conduct

vaiue叩rational

instrumental-rarional social acrion

social acrion

charisma, leading to substanrive rarionalizarion

rourinization, leading to formal ra rionaliza rion

amountmg to: amountmg to: chall创1ge to given social order on the adapt在rion to give往 socialorde写 岱 t 5 h部 ofva在芷巾 i拎 O邸 t岛阳与衍芷m 邵s of othe主rwo 岱rl挝 马与 P d 严ro 鸣 g主挝 es然SI忱 ve 如 fb 位主m 邵s of 蛇 rC 臼a过li垃 za挝必艺 rio ∞ nofi妇 :主ifc 岳 。栩唰唰栩栩币帽帽嗣-c e 帽帽

辛挝sc 伐 et位 i让clsm 狼1 怡 tO 玄祀 部硝$汉挝 e de 部 s然s lnn' mer 双 忧附 盯rwotl e 丘ld 街 l马y与

and rarionalizarion

在CtlVl ty

This dimension of social change, however , is confronted throughout with another one, which in many ways would appear to be even more formid动le， namely change which is iniriated not by innovarive social ac巾nb时 rather by the immanent dynamic of insriturions and socio-economic systems. In the course of time they tend progressively to unfold those principles on w主ich 由ey are based - Max Web衍。ften put this in metaphorical terms: he c在lled it the Eigengesetzlích是ei剿，出at is to s在y the 飞mmanent dynamic' of institurions or structures. ‘Materi过， - or ‘ substanrive' - interests, which often originate in socio-economic constellations of a particular kind , and ‘ lnst忧rum臼咄lta 圳 al-rationa址l' action correla孟 t优eWl坟thone 在I双10艺ther巳， 在盯矶 ndbot由 hwit也 hapur哼 po 创se←呻f刊a川t叫ion沁叫 al type oflif岳 kι幽-幽 -幽 幽 condu王C艺飞， that is to say the life-conduct expected by and demanded from ‘professionals' or , as Weber put it in Nietzschean terms , the Fachmensch , whose behaviour is determined by the mechanisms of insritutionali附d systems, such

TheTwoDi树nsÎons 吃fSoâal

Change

ISS

as the purely formal-rational structures of modern ìndustrial society. Thìs type oflife-conduct lies at the root of the process of routinization and eventually the formal rationalization of socìal systems. lt will become dominant. unless there are no countervailing forces to prevent i t. It is governed by the principle of optimally adaprin在 to given conditìons and conforming with the imm在nent princìples of establishing instìtutions and structures. Because of thìs orientation thìs type of life-conduct is bound to foster the process of routinization or formal rationalizatìon of institutions and social systems. It is this type ofhuman conduct in particular which ìs cultivated by bureaucratic insritutions‘ 丁his two-dimensìonal model of socìal change may be 始en as a synthesis of the ‘idealì悦， and ‘ material时， notions of change discussed above; 也rthermore， it takes into account Hennis's observation that Max Weber was 也ove al1 interested in one issue, namely the likely conse电uences of dif1去rent forms of lifιconduct in history. It would appear that there is much to be said for the view that W也er always posed the q时她on of what impact 'world-views' or ‘idea扩 have on social systems, seen in a world斗lÎstorical perspective. More complcx is the position regarding those interpretatìons w主 ích argue that Max Weber had been concerned 边ove al1 with the analysis of the secular processes of rationalization and ro'u tinization, phenomena of the 在reatest irnportance forou玄 understanding of the present world. In f马Ct Max Weber was interested in the interrelation of bo出 dimensions of social reality;也e fìrst concerns those types of personallife-conduct which are governed by value-rational or by substantive-rational principles 也就 in the fìnal analysis are based on value attitudes, which in turn derive their normative power from charismatic sources of some sort. 丁he second refers to those E位εngesetzlichkeiten (internal d尹lamics) which govern the development patterns of institutions and systems; these 在lways point towards progressive routinization and formal rational呻 1泛anon.

It goes without saying that the stuff ofhistory is full of phenomen在 ofthe latter variety. 111 the 主ealm of actual historical events routinization and rationalization, either ofreligious, philosophical or aesthetic doctrÌnes or of social 肌d political institutions，在re predorninant, while charismatic revolutions or valueoriente

156

The Development 吃fWeber's Theoretical Ideas

tions suc益好'eichenstellungen came about or are li如ly to occur. LikewÌse he was passionately interested in assessing to what degree they were effecrive in actually changing the direction of the course of history. ln trus context, strong personalleadership - not only in a religious or a po1itical sense, but in all spheres of culture - is assigned a key role in providing the impulses that may eventually lead to enrirely new developments. Max Weber proceeded from the key observation that in the known history of the world , historical developments (which, at first sight, seem by necessity to follow their own immanent dynamic) could be redirected on to revolutionary paths when, and only when, individuals or groups of individuals develop strict, et且ically regulated ways of . conducring their 1ives in the service of ulrimate，‘non-eveηrday' ideals. As a rule these ideals stand in sta业 contrast to everyday reality, thereby posing 在 challenge to it. Trus, however, is tantamount to saying that significant soci嘉i change wi挂在lw在严检 just around the comer. For if thesεindividuals orientate theìr life-conduct by these 气lon-everyday' idea]s wi出out reservation, while exercising asceticism in other fields of human acri飞rity，出ey will accumulate consid衍able soci在1 energies wmch eventually will 七reak the mould of ‘every呻 d在y'rεality. It was trus 岳ature which in Weber's opinion distinguished ancient Jud在ic prophecy and Puritan asceticism 台om other comparable religious movements; they mar主 decisive poims at which tracks were switched in the course of history , setring in motion those 岛rces 也在 t eventually 如rought about modem indus的在1 civilizatÌon. For Max Weber，也is by no means implied a devaluation of other religious systems. On the contrary, he was fascinated by Hinduism and Confucianism, those Asiatic religious creeds whose rughest goal is innerworldly perfection, to be found in a dignified and aestherically consummate personallife in wruch the individual has come to terms once and for all with the imperfections of the world as it is. 丁he parallels with attitudes expressed by present-day Westem intellectual elites were already sclf血evident to Weber. ln later years he occasionally toyed with the idea of whether he should not embark upon a similar path, as is indicated in the 'Zwischenbetrachtung' in the Collected Essays on theSociolog)叫fWorldRel告íot队 which may be read as a (however sublimé

TheTwρ Dimensions 吃fSocial Change

157

Accordingly the developmental path ofWestern culture forms the perspectival focus of Max Weber's universal-historical studies. τhere can be no question that the future ofWestern culture was central to Weber's interest. Max Weber's reconstruction of the hístory of Western civilization, as a process of progressive rationalization and disenchantment of Western cul tu时，础。ciated with the development of a rational science , a rational relationship of man to nature (being the precondition for its progressIVe su飞Jec巾n to human control), and the creation of a ra∞nal state, must be viewed as the ve町 essence of his sociology. The rise of modern industrial capitalism and its rapid expansion over the glo七e， associated with the inevitable destruction of al1 pre-modern socio-economic systems, and the growth of bureaucratic forrns of social organizations in all spheres of1ife were, in his view, irreversible. In this context he was particularly concemed about the impact of the twin forces of formal rationalization 在nd routinization upon 出e personal life-sphere of the individua1. They app'a rently posed a mortal danger to any form of lif七.:.conduct oriented towards ‘non-everyd町， ideals. If we take into 在ccount the fact that Weber assigned to this type of value-oriented life四conduct a fundamental significance as it affected the very chances of genuine innovation in the course of time , it immedi在tely becomes clear why he thought th汉也e eventual triumph of these forces would be tantamount to the ossification and petrifaction of society. To put it ano也erw:町， Max Weber was , in a way，也e prophet of the expansion ofWestern civilization over the whole world and of the triumph of modern industrial capitalism over all traditional socioeconomic formations. However，在t the same time he was painfully aware of the fact 也at t站s triumph carried with ít 出e seeds of its eventual downfall. For, as the 咀eal interests' from which capitalism had originally derived its strengt>l vis-à-vis all 艺raditional societies progressively weakened in the course of time, there arose a real danger that 出Ìs society's f主te might be the same as had befallen late antiquity. This being said, it should be noted that 出is was perhaps not the whole of Max Weber's message. Certainly his views about the developmental pa出 of world history, or at any rate of the histo巧T of the West, must not be pressed into a unilinear evolutionist model , regardless of whether this follows the tracks which are determined by ‘ ideal interes

15 8

The Development ofWeber's Theoretica

the backcloth of wor1 d history in a linear manner, with rationalization providing the thread of this teleological scheme and modern industrial society the fìnal goal. This was done in a solid , if not always convincing manner, for instance by Günther Abramowski. 18 Friedrich Tenbruck suggested an alternative approach, namely to give proper attention to the key role which Weber assigned to religious beliefs and religious wo r1 d-views in the process ofhistory. Al l the same he shares the view that Weber, once he had discovered that progressive ‘ disenchantment' was the decisive feature ofWestern history, developed a comprehensive analysis of processes of rationalization in all spheres oflife. 19 Wolfgang Schluchter is far more circumspect in his own attempt, to reconstruct Weber's universal-historical thought as a ‘ developmental history of the West'. He postulates neither a deterministic nor a strictly cOlltinuous evolutionary process towards modernity. Even so , in his view Weber's sociology reaches its culmination in a the。可 ofourown rational wor1 d civilization. It was the result of many different evolutionary steps forward , a process in which religious wor1 d-views had played an important role, though within the context of particular socio-economic structures. 20 Paradoxically, however, nowhere in Weber's work do we fìnd a systematic exposition of his views on the history of Western culture, although he constantly refers to bureaucratization and rationalization as its central theme. He presented his views regarding the future of the individualist societies of the West only in segmented form. Nor was he consistent on these matters. But it was certainly not his aim to develop yet another evolutionist model of the history of Western civilization or, indeed, of universal history, adding one further example of this specimen which had been abundantly represented in European literature ever since Hegel. Admittedly, in his ea r1 y work Weber had stiU been strongly influenced by the copious nineteenth-century literature employing models of social evolution of various sorts, but in his own methodological writings he had worked hard to steer clear of all the evolutionary theories enumerating various stages of the development of human society which had been current at the time. This is illustrated by his devastating critique ofStammler,21 and also his uncompromising rejection of, for example, Lam

了'he

Two Dimensions ofSocial Change

1 S9

Society , notably the chapters on the sociology of domination and the sociology oflaw, are organized according to a teleological model of the historical process pointing towards an even greater dominance of rationality and formallegality. A1 though this teleological model is introduced with reservations which quali f)r it as hypothetical, it is 附verthel岱s prese忧d in a quasi-objec的e manner. Acζording to this l110del , l11agic ‘W曰ld-view骂， and charismatic or patriarchal forms of dOl11ination 叩 political， religious or ideological- were predominant in theearl 均句 ystage 伊￠销sofknow白u 旧缸 Ena仙i总s船栩E叮y. As time went on, they were s吨jected to routiniza tÎ on and demagification. Eventually they 伊ve way to modern rational and bureaucratic for l11 s of domination which are based upon a purely formal legal system which can be reconstructed at will and enlists the support of rational science. If this developmental path is projected into the foreseea七le future , the overwhelming pressure of advancing bureaucrati剧ion wi11, or at least might, result in a petrifaction of modern culture. In such co附xts Weber did not always avoid the trap of formulating the uniqueness ofWestern culture in such a way as to let it appear in a fatalistic ligl役， with a ring of finality. 气X7eber's intensÌve studies of the great world religions other 出an Christianity, which he had el11 barked upon by 1915 with enormous vìgour and passionate interest, helped him to transcend this vaguely evolutionist notion of universal history which，且owever tentatively he had presented his respective findings , inevìtably created a misleadir屯 impression of unilinearity and teleologicalωnceptualization. Initially he had turned to the study of the great oriental world religions in order to further corroborate his 出eSls on 也e origins of capitalism and to demonstrate even more strongly the singularity ofWestern indivìdualist culture. However, a more thorough and more intimate study of Hinduism, Buddhism and Confucianism soon carried him far beyond his original intention, even though its 丘amework was never fully deared away, not even when he prepared the Collected Essays on the Socíol也lofRel告ion for publication early ìn 1920, s如ortly before his death. For one thing, Max Weber ful忖 recognized the gr创刊eligious achievements of As ian and, in particular, of Indian religious thought throughout the centuries: 'There. will be found but 岳w ideas bey

160

The Development 吃fWeber's Theoretical Ideas

and superstition, but one of radically di的rent modes of rationalization. In fact, Weber was far from simply discardi吨 Hinduism and Buddhism as irrationalist and backward religious creeds. On the contra巧， he was fascinated to fìnd that Hinduism and Buddhism were in fact thoroughly rational systems of thought. if judged according to their own ethical premises. A1 though Hinduism represented an absolute contrast to the innerworldly ethics of Protestantism. it was, on its own terms, a consistent value-rational system of thought; during the course of many centuries its ethico-religious principles had 七优 n transformed 七y the bràhmin caste into a rational doctrine which was both coherent and strin在ent if seen from 出e vantage-point of the 豆rst principles of Hi双duism. Weber admired brahminism for its immanent rationality. by the standards of its own premises. and he emphasized the fact 也at it shunned all irrational ways of s恍如11革命e salvation of the sou1. In 坠IS Opl出on， the doctrine ofkarma had been successful throughout Asia precisely because of the rational manneri双飞~hich it had answered the etemal 电uestion ofhow t，。在nd peaceand salvation for the individual，岛y preaching contemplation and 'otherworldly' ascehclsm. In principle. the p拭tem of social change 也iti主ted 与 ideal impulses operated here also , although the practical consequences were acquiescence in the conditions of life as the ultimate path to individual salvation. Strong ‘non甲 everyday' belief与 induce the individual to adopt a particular lífe-conduct which, if taken up by larger groups and exercised for generations, eventually accumulates enough strength to serve as the basis for a new world civilization. It is only in contrast to the perennial restlessness of the Puritans that these orienèal religions appear to be agents of social stagnation per se. Certainly they Z在tionalízed the lífe如conduct of their followers in such a翩 way as to lead them away from restless economic activity. But all the same they represent typical C在ses of social change of signifìcant dimension being induced by ‘ otherworldly' beliefs. In view of th岱e fìndings it would appear advisable to exercise caution in assigning to West，εm civilization a qualitatively hi拉er s锦tus than to the FarEastern culrures. Admittedly Weber put special emphasis 哼∞ the singulari巧r ofWestern development, in compa丘son with 出at öf the Far-E梢tern cultures, and he did so even in very la ,

万le

Two DímensÎons ofSocíal Change

161

signifìcant'户 This remark obviously referred to the fact that Western civilíza-

tion was a已out to conquer the whole world. But the usual c在veat is not absent here either: 'at any rate as we ourselves would like to 出nk'.28 In Weber's texts such statements (wruch can 如 sustained only in the context of a su己stantive p弘losophy ofhistory) are always clearly marked as meta-scientifìc. However, it would certainly not be possible to argue that Weber considered the Western and the oriental cultures in principle to be 叫ual. His personal choice was unequivocal: he identifìed unreservedly with the Western cultural tradition. He repeatedly pointed out 出at rus aim was to establish the distinctive character of Western culture by comparing it with other world religions (wruch, incidental峙， he intended to supplement with analyses of Egyptian, Mesopotamian, Zarathustrian and Christian religious creeds).29 However，刘s study of the Prote阳lt ethic is by no means merely a contra但吨 model against wruch rus theories about the origins of capitaHsm and the Western type of rationalization might be verifìed and described in more precise terms商As has been shown above, he discovered here patterns of rationalization oflife….conduct on religious grounds which corroborated rus view that social change m巧 spring fÍ'om such ‘ ideal' sourc白， though in practice they become effective only in conjunction with ‘ material interests' that often take on institutionalized form. Furthe主more， in his studies of the oriental world religions W伦er became more and more aware of the fact that rationalization can mean very different things in different contexts. Rationalization was by no means absent or insig刷 出ficant in the Fa卜Eastern civilizations, yet it operated from entirely different prernises and accordingly it had a totally different impact upon the social fa如ic. Up to 白白， Weber had talked，血 comparanvely objecnve terms，站。川 the process of rationalization wruch，。叫吨 to the dynarnic of mature capitalism and the advance of 讪reaucratization associated with it, as well as the progressive intellectualizanon of all ‘world-views二 was a七out to dorninate more and more spheres of life. Now he began to quaHfy trus observation; it was ∞t ‘ rationa1ity' but 布rmal rationali町'which w.在s the decisive element in the ‘ lron cage of future serfdom飞 which appeared to be the eventual fate of Western civilizatÍon so long as there were no countervailing forces to prevent it. At about the same time Weber began to distinguish sha

162

The Develop附们fWeber's Theoretíca1 Ideas

on the given situation; this implies, however, that there exists - or at any rate there can exist - not just one but a plurali可 of ‘ rationalization processes' în history. This was clearly Weber's own view. He pointed out that ‘ rationalizations of the most varied character have existed in various spheres of life and in the most diverse sectors of culture'. However, he considered it decisive ‘ which particular sectors are rationalized , and what direction this process will take'.31 It could be argued that for Weber the differentiation between various types of rationalization, depending on difi岳rent value-orientations, was not an altogether new departure. Al ready in The Protestant Ethíc it is said that ‘ life can be "ratiollalized" from altogether different "ultimate" viewpoints and in altogether different directionsY However, in 1905 this statement carried no particular weight , inasmuch as the singularity of the 可pe of ‘ rationalization' stemming from Puritan religiosity appeared to be beyond doub t; surely it was there to stay, whereas the other varieties of ‘ rationalization' were inevitably receding into the background. When Weber re-edited the essays on The Protestant Ethíc in 吵吵， he found it necessa叮 to add a 尺joinder which emphasized the importance of this statement (which in the 1905 version had been rather a marginal comment, but which by now had gained a new signifìcance): ‘All studies devoted to "rationalization" ought to begin wi出 this plain sentence卢3 Weber had good reason for doing so; for by then he had arrived at a more differentiated position which distinguished between 'formal' and ‘ substantive' rationality. Western culture did not rep时sent the only case of rationalization of all spheres of life , but rather a special varie可 of rationalization, although of the greatest cultural signifìcance, namely ‘ formal rationality' (it could also be said to be ‘ technical rationali可" al出ough nownere does Weber use this term). Therefore he now considered it necessa可 to emphasize the antinomical character of the concept of ‘rationali町" and to point out that ‘ rationali町， is a meaningful term only if it is related to a particular vantagepoint. With hindsight he ascribed to the essays in The Protestant Ethíc and the Spirit of Capitalism above all the intention 'to demonstrate that "rationality", although it appears to be an unequivocal concept, may in fact mean ve町 diι ferent 仙19S'.34 Certainly this had not been his orig

The Two Dimensions 吃fSocial Change

16 3

gready importa抵 to advise c革ution with regard to applying the concept of ‘ rationality' to social phenomena without any prior investigation of its actual meaning in a given context 在nd in relation to a given system of ‘ ultimate' ideal valu也

丁he distinction between 也rmal and su七stantive rationality shows up also in

the Soω哩'y of Law , as applied to the difi岳阳lt legal sys优ms to be found in history. However, as is indicated by the heading of section S -‘ Formal and suι stantive rationalization of law: theocratic and secular law' (in Economy and Society this heading is only incompletely reproduced) - they were stiìl related to different historical formations. 35 Substantive forms of legal proceedings and accordingly substar泛ive rationalization oflaw are described as 可pical f出tures of theocratic law in its various historicalvariants. With the triumph ofRoman i在w， however, substantive law and substantive leg主1 proceedings 主ppeared doomed, even though Weber was prepared to concede that even today [he ut巾ersal advance of formal law had been slowed down at times 句 demands for su七stantive justice on the grounds of class interests and idωlogy飞36 丑utthe trend of the rime pointed in the opposite direction. 'Inevitably the notion must expand 出at the law is a rarional technical apparatus , w且ich is continually transformable in the light of expediential consider在rions and devoid of all sacredness of content.>37 In 在r eber's view, this was 气mavoida七le des出ly'. NowWebεr considered that the evolurionist resolurion of the antinomy 如 tween substantive and formallaw suggested in the Sociol，咄， of La w was no longer tenable. He beg革n to emphasize more and more strongly that 出e antinomy between formal and substantive rarionality cannot 七e dissolved into a sequence ofhistorical sta驴s; it is a fundamental antinomy which exists in all societal 岛rmations， even the modem bureaucraric ones. In the context of a passage discussing different 句pesofmarke←oriented money economies written in 1920, Weber made this point unequivocally clear:‘ Formal and substanrive rationality, by whatever standard the latter is measured , are always in principle separatεthings， even if in ma可 (and theorerically, al邸吨h on totally unreal premises, even in all) cases 出ey may coincide empirically.'38 Any inψiry into SOCl在1 institurions and 主istorical developments will have to take account of七oth these aspects of rarionality which may be conditioned

16 4

The Development ofWeber's Theoretical Ideas

appeared to be the ultimate stage in world histo ry; it was bound to triumph over all its rivals. Now this proposition had to be reformulated , namely as the progressive accumulation of乒rmal rationali叩. This was all-important, inasmuch as formal and substantive rationali叩 were governed by entirely different principles. On account of the fundamental dichotomy between formal and substantive rationali叩 which did not lose its momentum in the course of time , the notion of the process of Western development had to be seen in a new light. The discovery of the fundamental antinomy of formal and substantive rationali叩39 relativized thc theoretical model of rationalization which had served as a theoretical backbone to Weber's universal-historical studies. It cleared the way for a wider, comparatively more differentiated notion of universal history. Now history was the embodiment of a plura1ity of competing processes of rationalization, directed either by the immanent dynamic of material conditions and institutional structures, or by ideal interests which draw their energy from otherworldly and subjectively absolutely bin.ding ideal values anchored in particular world-views which have found a concrete base in the 1ife-conduct of social groups. These world-views are in a perennial struggle with one another. This was true for rational Western civilization ofWeber's own day just as much as for former historical formations. Let us recapitulate. We 自nd two different dimensions in which rationalization of social systems operates. On the 自rst plane rationalization is governed by material interests; for this reason it is usually steered into the realm of formal rationality, because instrumental-rational adaptation to the regularly recurring circumstances of given reali叩 is likely to be the most effective form of social conduct. On another plane, however, rationalization is governed by ideal interests which in turn are determined by otherworldly, that is to say ‘non-eve巧day'， ideals which may be so stringent as to induce individuals to adopt a methodical 1ifestyle in order to live up to these ideals as well as they can. In other words , this second 可pe of rationa1ity is governed , in Weber's terminology, by substantive considerations which usually are at variance with the principles of formal rationality. In Weber's opinion substantive and formal rationalization can coexist for long periods of time , but in principle they are in insoluble con f1 ict with one another. 40 The very fact that they have entirely different roots guarantees that in principle there exists at any given moment in history a plura1ity of potential developmental paths. To put it another way, universal history is in principle open, notwithstanding the prediction that, under given circumstances, formal rationalization and bureaucratization are likely to be triumphant. But the possibi1ity that at some point in the future substantive rationality might provide sufficient social energies to give a new

The TwoDimeηsíons ofSocial Change

16S

turn to the developmental path of 立lestern civilizatÍon could no longer 七c entirely ruled out.

PARTIV

The Rediscovery ofMax Weber

11

Max Weber in Modern Social Thought

In his famous treatise La Soâologie allemande contemporaine Raymond Aron stated that Max Weber was certai均 the most important German sociologist of his time. 1 丁oday this would appear to be an obvious thing to s呵， as there is 在 worldwide resurgence of interest in his wo此.2 At the time, however，也is was anything but an estab 1ished fact. Certainly he was acclaimed by the German sociological profession, and 检yond it by historians , social scientists and philosophers, as a thinker of great originality and intellectual power. Yet it is a matter of considerable dispute whether he had a substantial intellectual following among the still fairly smal1 group of sociologists during 也e Weimar period. It should be remen由ered that 在t that time sociology had not yet 妆en fully accepted aS an independent fìeld of inquiry 飞Nithin the academic system. Certainly it is faÎr to say that during his lifetime Max Weber had not esta七lished a ‘ school: in the classic sense, even though he had been one of the founders of the Deutsche Ge sellschaft fiir Soziologie and had exercised consider边le influence upon its operations in its early years. 1t may 在Iso be said that he had no direct heirs among the sociologists of the 1920S and the early 193悦， although men like ]oseph Schumpeter, Karl LöwensteÎ泣， K在主1 Mannheim or Karl ]aspers continued to be strongly influenced 七y his ideas. So far we h在ve few satisfactory 在ccounts of the development of the social sciences in Germany either in the 1920S or under National Socialism, except, perha严， Georg Lukács's rather onesided account Die Zerstörut理 der Vernu桥， fìrst published in 19巧 .3 All we have is a great v盯iety of essays and personal recollections , whereas sys优matic research Îs stiU in its initial stages. 4 甘lere are but a few monographic studies or general assessments. 5 So far Ra严nond Aron's account written in 1935 and reprinted in 1950 (a much needed German edition wasp由lished three years late斗 has not yet been surpassed.6 This circumstance

170

立在e Rediscove守吃fMaxWeber

makes it somewhat difficult correct1y to assess the influence of Max Weber 0双 social thought in Germany in the period preceding Hitler' s rise to pow悦。ne point, however, can no longer be disputed. Contrary to a 飞Nidely held view, during the Weimar Repub 1i c Max Weber was the most cited a时， if this criterion is used, the most influential sociologist in Germany.7This may, however, lead to false conclusions, inasmuch as there are almost no attempts at a systematic reconstruction of the major themes of his sociological work. It should also be realized that, since much of his work was published only posthumously, the time span for a proper reception of his ideas has been ve巧齿。rt indeed, as Rainer Lepsius pointed out recently.a 丁he common belief that Max Weber had found no sig出主cant fo11o飞Ning at all in his own time, after his premature d锦th inju挝 1920， was, in part, a myth which was perhaps unintentionally produced 己y the Heidelberg Circle which had gathered around Marianne Weber and Karl jaspers in the 1920S. Both MarianneW检er and Karl jaspers，在e latter in a most influential and impressively written book Max Weber: Politi.阳~ Forscher, Philosoph fìrst published in 193 卒， described Max Weber as a persona1i可 of outstanding rank who never found the acclaim which he deserved , eìther among his fe110w academics or from the public at large. jaspers put this in rather lofty terms: ‘After Nìetzsche, man had found , at any rate Up to now, his last and defìnite personifìcation in MaxWeber.'(咀r hat seine vorläufìg letzte grosse Gestalt in Max Weber gehabt, die Gestalt unserer Welt, die in so reissendem Tempo sich verwandelt, dass die besonderen Inhalte der Weberschen Welt trot乞食r Kürze der Zeit schon vergangen sind.')9 Injaspers's view there were few, if any, other thinkers around who were worthy of and equal to this great man. In fact, Weber's work received considerable 革ttention 抬出飞iVÏthin professional sociology and in 飞jacent fìelds. As late as 1934, according to a sUrvey conducted 七y the American sociologist Earle Edward Eubank, he was rated one ofthe 萨岱t， if not the grεatest， sociologist by his col1eagues in Germany.IO In this respect，剖 least， he was certainly no olitsider, as conventional wisdom would have it. 丁he impressive number of scholars who contributed to the Erinnerungsgabe für Max Weber , published in 1923 by Melchior Pal抖 in two volumes, also indicates that Max Weber certainly was not forgotten，讪t wasat any rate for the time being - a key fìgure

Max Weber in Modern Social Thought

17 1

attention and explìcit evaluation in m呼 or studies by scholars in neighbouring disciplines. Al ready in 1928 Bernhard Pfister had wrÍtten a major study of Weber's theo巧。f ideal types , wl让ch cor阳句 asses时 the latter's 11叫时。甲 logical position as an attempt to build 在 bridge between formal sociology, as represented by Karl Menger, and historicism, as represented by Gustav Schmoller.'2 Others followed suit. Al exander von Schelting published in 1934 his analysis of what he called Max Weber's Wissensch价lehre (theory of scientific knowledge) , a term which, though unsatisfactory, is still in common usage. 1J Joachim Wach incorporated Weber's contribution to the theo叩 of understanding into his pioneering study Das Verstehen. 14 Karl Löwith wrote a masterful account of Max 京Teber's relationship to Karl Marx; he found that Marx's theory of alienation had a direct equivalent in Weber's idea of dis叫 enchantment, that is to say the increasing isolation and insignificance of the personality in a world full ofbu舵在ucracies. 1S Likewise Siegfried Landshut drew attention to the points of coincidence between Marx's and Weber's theories , strongly regretting, however, that the latter, in retaining a dubious stance of o与制lVl巧， had 岳iled to draw adequate conclusions from his fìndings by opposm怒也e capitalist order directly as a system whìch ought to be superseded by a new order of society.l 在 Carl Schmitt took Weber's theories of parli mentary government and charismatic leadership 龄在 point of departure for his own political theory which, however, pointed in an altogether different direction. 17 SchmÌtt's functionalist conception of parliamentary politic趴 在ssociated with his preference for personal-plebiscitarγrule， was directly based on premises to be found in Weber's writings. However , deviating from Weber's own intentions, he used this to substantiate a radical refutation of liberal democracy. His theo巧 of decisionism also owed a great deal to W丛er ， although it negated the essential ethical premis臼 of Weber's thougl扰， in particular the moral 0剖igation to choose between di能rent values in a rational manner and with the utmost degree ofhonesty. Among historians Otto Hintze ought to be mentioned as one who adapted Weber's ideal-typical method to historiographical usage. His universal书istorical studies of European constÌtutional history since the seventeenth century match Weber's thought bo也 ln s

•

17 2

The Rediscovery 吃fMaxWeber

types and, later, pure 号rpes， often arranged like formulae in a systematic mann时. with .historical analysis. all of these approaches being informed and brought together by a particular notion of the universal-historical process which may wel1 be called a subst在ntÎve theo巧 of histo町. albeit with the status of a hypothesis疆 It Îs otherwor1d与 views which inaugurate social change of signifìcant dimensions either through religious wo r1 d-views or through value…beliefs which are established by charismatic individuals，如 they prophets or leaders of 咄w}坠la拭E衍 础 仰v C 时 州e盯r门s阳 t，命。吨h 白白 on th巧r are subjected to routinizaωn and rationalization which eventually always gain the upper hand. However, Weber 主 lways steadfastly refused to state this theo巧r in explicit terms in篇由 much as this would lead straight into the realm of unsú.bstantiated valuejudgements鑫 Thus he succeeded in developing a sys纪m of social thought which focused upon the key problems of the modern age, that is to say the embattl叫 position of the individual in the face of the seemingly alrnig且可 twin forces of bureaucr主tization and f与rmal rationalization. He did so by interpredng the empirical data against the backclom of univer铅1 history. German sociology in the I920S had been, for the most part, un飞机lling to accept this programme in its entirety. Instead it tended to emphasize modelbuilding, or empirical social researc坠， or explicit philosop如cal-historical theorizing. None of Weber's fellow social scientÌsts succeeded in combining these approaches in an acceptable scholar1y manner, let alone with the grand10Sεvision which had inspired Web优 ln addition, more 在en挝al factors wi1l also have to be taken into consider杂 tion. The intellectual climate in the 1920S was incompatible wit坠 mostofwhat Max Weber had stood for. Undoubted忖 Weber's ideas were fìrmly rooted in the German idealist tradition, much as those of his fellow social scientists in G臼many. He had been influenced perhaps more thoroughly than others not only hy Karl Marx but also by Fried白h Nietzsche. It is reported by Eduard Baumgarten that he once said to one of his students (presumably Baumgarten 主imsel 夺 that only mose who had engaged themselves in a thorough study of the thought of these two thinkers could be considered capa七le of understanding the major problems of the age. 19 However, Weber's acceptance of Nietzsche had always heen qualifìed. While he shared Nietzsche's fear that

Max Weber in Modern Social Thought

173

he sympathized with Nietzsche's aristocratic individualísm as far as it could be reconciled with his liberal notion of a social order which offered a maximum of opportunities for al1 individuals alike. None the less it should be kept in mind 也atM在x Weber, unlike most of his contemporaries in Germany , also shared the essenti在1 elements of the western European intellectual tradition. It should be borne in mind that Weber had a lifelong admiration for the political culture of the Anglo-Saxon countries. He attributed the success of the liberal sysem in Great Britain and the United States in part to the influence of Puritanism, whereas , conversely, the authoritarian features of German politic在l culture could 玩 traced back largely to the intel1ectual and religious heritage of !-utheranism. In his view, it was not least for this reason tha艺 there had never 七een a 包enuine breakthrough ofli检ralism in Imperial Germany. In particular, the intellectual example ofJohn Stuart Mill certainly must be rated ve可 highly for Weber's intel1ectual development. 1t may be said that Max Weber's thought represented a genuine syn出iosis of the German 在nd the western intellectual traditions. In t主is respect he stood in stark contrast to the great m气jority of German intellectuals of his day, perhaps with the notable exception of 丑 rnst 币。eltsch， whose endeavours in the early 1920S to bridge the gap between 留 estern 在nd German intellectual culture, ho 旧 ow 附 恍 e 咣 v er几， proved singularly uns 怒阳附 su 旺 u1κ 汇 肌 c-田町-丽帽 帽

.

Cαes岱sf缸 L巳王1.

It is this orientation ofWeber's sociological thou在ht which accounts for its limited success in Weimar Germany, despite the fact that 挝sw。这 was in the back of every初句's mind and continued to 汝 discωsed a great dea 1. His influence did not prove strong enough to lead German sociology out of the rut of a predominantly idealist, spiritual and often organi! holistic approach to the study of society and culture. Max Weber's theory of ration磊lization as the predominant feature of Western èultural development. in contrast to the development of the great cultures in the Middle and Far East, clearly spelled out the potential dangers for the liberal societies of the Western world in his own time. But he carefulIy a己stained 丘om condemning rationalization outright às a social force threaten鸣曲 individualist culture of the Wes t, as many of his fe l10w sociologists, includinghis own brother Al fred , were quick to do. In fact Max

•

174

TheRedísco附ry 吃fMaxWeber

Neirher did he wish to get embroiled with 由e more common form of criti守le of moder也ry voiced by many of his colleagues from the vanr垂在e-point of an elitisr intellectual culture in which the great personaliry plays an outstanding role. It was f白hionable at the time to em阱asize the contrast between rhe irration在llife→p主ere of the personaliry and industrial sociery, in such a w主Y 主S to play into the hands of anti蛐moderni汉艺endencies. Weber's own position on this count was rather more circumspect than 齿。se of many of his co11eagues. He 。专jected to the cult of ‘ persona1iry' , s优nin radic在1 juxraposition to 泣如il泣a­ tion' , al出ough he w路 fullyaw在re of the secular d在ngers to man as an individual, as the only source ofcreative social action and imbued with a deep sense of personal responsibiliry. He refused to join in rhe f:在sruon of condemning 垃vilization' outright, and to indulge in a new intellectual romanticism. Instead 坠e considered bureaucratÎzation and formal rationalization as inevitable phenomena w且ich modern man had to endure, unless he wished to opt out of modern sociery altogether，明白 all the consequences this involved. Ra ther, man is called upon to m在ke 白e best of the situation in which he fìnds himselE While on one plane they put individual auronomy in jeopardy, on another .plane bureaucratÎzation and the rational techniques of the modern age provided new opportu出ties for creative (in other words , value-oriented) social action under the conditions of advanced industrial societies. 丁here was, in his view, no easy way out. It was not possible simply to opt for either modern, forma l1y rational culture or for the irrational cult of the personaliry and the cultivation of the individuallife四sphere， as preached at the time 峙， among others, notably Stefan George and his disciples. One had to put up with the fact 也就 modern life was dominated by the eternal struggle between conflicting value町principl时， and one had to solve these value-conflicts by an adequate personal 1ife-conduct rather than by looking for prophets or for 在 return to a traditional social order. Least of all did he favour convenient middle-of-the-road solutio黯.T头Ìs plea for rationa1iry and for accepting modern industrial culture and mass democracy separated Weber from the great r口气joriry of his 岳llow sociologists. For th巧 were all , or almos艺在11， influenced by the irrationalist tendencies of the currξnt intellectual climate which played with a

Max Weber in Modern Social Thought

175

implications. Neither Max 百出时's typology of different forms of social action nor his theo巧 of social groups would have anything in common with such an irrationalist conceptualization. 丁hough he was the last to consider irrational or even emotional forms of motivation of social action as somehow negligible (and indeed he had developed his interpretative sociology in order to provide the methodological tools for correc t1 y assessing non-rational forms of actÌon in a ratìonal mann吟， he refused to commend irrational types of social conduct. Neither did 且is methodological individualism allow social institutions to be interpreted in collectivistic terms , as, for instance, in Leopold von Wiese's work, 时， at the other end of the political spectrum，七y Ottmar Spann. In short , German systematic sociology in the 1920S 品llowed a pa出 of social analysis entirely different from that of Max Weber. It was influenced far more by tradi… tional ideal缸， neo-romanticist or organic-holistic views than Max Weber would have tolerated. An even stron在er contrast of t且is sort developed in sociology of culture, as represented in 设法 work of Franz Oppenheimer and Max Weber's brother Al丘ed. Both could not resist the temptation to present their sociological 飞news in the form of substantive theories of history sttongly critical of modern industrial civilization and mass culture. Oppenheimer ended up doing some抽 thing which Max Weber had always refused to do , namely outlining a teleological model of the historical process terminating in the utopian vision of 革丘恍 如cle巧r of the future in many ways reminiscent of early nineteenth-century liberal views; he envis主ged the eventual emergence of a new type of society of small proprietors within an economy devoid of big business; a decenttalized polìtical system would free all citizens from govemmental oppression and state interD挝ence in social affaÍrs. In Al fred Weber's sociology we 他serve an even sttonger fusion of liberal Vlews 叫出 an irrationalist notion of culture. His cultural sociology had a strong anti-modemist bias. Originally A1fred and Max Weber had 检en ve叮 close in their views; bo出 had been strong opponents of 七ureaucracy and authoritarian control in Wilhelmine Germa问. Bo社1 had fought hard ag在inst Schmoller's conservative views and their predominant influence within 由己 Verein 起r Sozialpolitik. Both had been associated with progressive liberal politics 革ndhad opposed extre

176

The Rediscovery ofMax weber

and 'culture' as antinomies; wlùle civilization stood for the material sphere of human 在ctivity dominated by the powerful forces of technological change and material progress, culture stood for man's inner values, for the sphere of creative spontanei巧， dominated 均 irrational motives which Al fred Weber summed up in the notion Lebensgifühl (li岳 experience). Culture develops within sp机ific Geschichts剖irper (lùstorical entitie斗， that is to s在y particular socio-historical constellations which allow a certain degree of secluded dev e1 0pment of individual styl邸， emotions and fe e1ings wlùch then may 主nd expression in intellectual or aesthetic artefacts. Civilization, on the other hand, issu问jected to the iron laws of the market-place a时 ofma 汉艺仅 ter 盯na 必a过i 肘cess白 i让ties咄ere 芷衍 e 22 there is no room for 平 spon 时tan 挝 εe1艺句 y人y 户 Tlùs sort of conceptualization was in direct conflict with fundamental notions ofMax Weber's sociology. For the lattt: r h在d carefully avoíded opening up such a di飞ride between rationa1ity and the personal lifιsphere， betw时a civilization and culture, which, with lùndsight, appears to be very much part of a specific German heritage. In fact , a good deal of German sociological thought, in so far as it concerned itse1f with macro-sociological issues, dri在ed moreand more in tlùs d.irection,. na血盹C与 anω翩翩巾吁翩翩 f 陶.roI踹1拭riωi i妇 ndl山 1览st时 na 注1 sωOC1仕 et穹 Y wlùch originated in a cluster of motives pa衍r仅 圳t句 1与 yidea 过li加 s挝t， part1y neo-romanticist and part1y anti-capitalist. Tlùs is true also ofHans Freyer. Freyer seems to have grasped the gist of Max Weber's intellectual position more correc t1y than any oflùs colleagues. In lùs influential book Soziologie als Wirklichkeitswissenschafi pub1ished in 1930 Freyer exp 1icitly acknowledged as being correct what he called 'the fundamental tendency' ofWeb时's sociological system. Tlùs system, he argued, was ‘ the greatest and, a缸。吨 the modem academic [sociologic在11 sy阳I战 the on午 exa吨le of a sociology which aimed at system占uilding， but at the same rime at 在scertaining present-day reality, induding its lùstoric主1 premises and fùtu时-oriented tendencies: in 齿。rt， a concrete sociology.'23 But Hans Freyer chose to fo l1ow a diι ferent path wlùch deviated 丘om Max Weber's position, even though norninally lùs own sociological work was meant to implement the programme of sociology as a Wirklichkeitswisse附hafi (scie缸e of reali呐 in the 主叫ition of Webe

Max Weber ín Modern Soâa! Thought

I77

would supplant class society and its constituent li快ral elements once and for al 1. A七out the ideological nature of such an undertaking he was 电uite unequivocal: 毛with such a thesis sociology establishes itself as a thoroughly antiliberal undertaking, as an intel1ectual position quite opposÌte to the ideology ofbourge01s SOCl叫了24 In this context Freyer addr岱sed hìmself direc t1 y to Max Web也 He pointed out that Max Weber had shared the same theme and approach 在S Marx, but instead of dr在wing the 0七vious conclusions about the future of the bourgeois order - namely that modern class society ought to be rejected and replaced with 注 new social order guaranteed by a strong state 呻 he had taken refuge in a formalistic casuistry. It is not difficult to see why Hans Freyer eventually became an adherent of National Socia1ism, even though he remained a radical conservative at heart. 25 Indeed, as has been shown 均 Jerry Z. Muller ìn a most interesting study,2Ó he soon found 且imself outflanked by f红 more radical tendencies. In 1934 Freyer had 七een elected Führer of the Deutsche Gesellschaft fùr Soziologie on the assumption that it might be possible for him to secure its survival with not too much sacrifice of scholarly standards. However, Freyer's relarionship with offìcial National Socialìst academic policies turned out to be rather coo1. He was not prepared to be instrumental in the implementarion of National Socialist principles in sociology. Eventually he ended up in a position of semiisolation. All the same, Freyer's intellectual development in these years provides a significant insight into the development of German social thought during the period ofNational Socialist rule. In the intel1ectual climate prevailing in the late 1920S and early 1930S Max Weber's ideas were considered nó longer satisfactory, precisely because they did not al10w compromises between scholarship and political be挂efs such as were considered imperative by Freyer and others. Besides, Freyer's qualification of Weber's sociology as typically 1iberal and bourgeois cor主esponded with views widely held in other quarters. In I932 ChristophS时ing published a doctoral thesis on Po /itiμndWi￥~senschaft bei Max Weber in which he launched a vitriolic attack 呻 upo 侃 n Webe 盯ra 剖S 白t 仨扯e last g主妃ea川E re 守 P陀 res 段阳附 臼盼 e n1

1iv 扣 vedi岱 t岱s优elf 扭 andwa蹈sab 如o】飞时 1汉t川tωob 怡er，肥e抖 pla征ced 七均 yar时 1拔ewsocla址lorde盯rwhi 让ich 挝1， though not

explici

I7 8

Thε 反edisco何ryofMax

weber

years later pleaded for a National Soci在list hegemony over Europe as the first step tow在rds the creation of a new nationalist and organic European culture under Teutonic leadership which would conform to the principles of soci址 。rganization predominant in the Middle Ages, though now at an infinite1y higher leve1 of historical dev e1 opment. As 1 have shown e1sewhere, Weber's notion of charismatic domination and the radical formalization of parlia偏 mentary democracy in 且is political sociology had provided intellectual stepping四stones f吐出e emergence of non再democratic views among the German intelligentsia. But in substancεhe had nothing in common with irrational political creeds like Steding's. Hìs 1iberal convictions and hìs steadf主st adherence to the principle of rationali 咛 made his sociology unacceplable in the intellectual climate prevailing under National Socìalism. Contra巧r to a widely h e1d view, the National Socialist takeover did not lead to a sudden halt of socìological research. Given the fact that sociology had commonly been held to be closely associated to Marxist thought, its status as an ìndependent discipline appeared now to be threatened; however，问 redefining its su导机←matter in terms acceptable to the new regime and occasionally 切 taking shelter under the roof of other disciplines 呻 like， in Leipzig, universal history in the tradition of La mprecht - it managed to survive.28 As more recent re拢在rch has 也ow凡在s a schola向 discipline sociology actual与 thrived unde主 National Socialism as long as it conducted empirical 主esearch believed to be useful to the new regime. 29 In a w町， Freyer's programme for creating a ‘ German sociology' proved rather successful , though under somewhat different auspices than he would have liked to se巳 Under the umbrella of the new ‘Ge主man sociology' there gathered a considerable number of scholars from neighbouring disciplines like Volkskunde , ethnology, history, public law and political science conducting research on topics r出ted to Nation在1 Socia1ist ideology. 丁hey focused on Volkstum ('folkdom'), rather than 吨。n bourgeois society, something which came to be considered as a cypical shortcoming of socìology during the Weimar period. This h e1 ped to pull sociology close to the National Socialist camp and in some respects to make it a willing servant of the regime. 30 On the oth时 hand serious sociological research on fundamental issues was severe

Max weber ín Modern Sodal Thought

179

ship of the sort that Max Weber had ìnitiated did not find a place in the 丁hird Reich. Weber's liberal convictions and the steadfast adherence to the principle of rationaliry made his sociology unacceptable in 出e intellectual climate prevailing under 到ational Socialism. Therefore it will come as no surprise that during the period of National Socialism the intellectual heritage of Max Weber was largely abandoned; at best it survived in a 仕agmented and distorted form. A case in question was Al fred Müller-Armack's adaptation of M础 Weber's thesis on 'Protestantism and the origins of capitalism'. Müller-Ar mack reinterpreted Weber's argument in an altogether idealistic manner, in order to en1 ist it as support for h必 own theo町， according to which 念conomic history is determìned by a se弓uence of Wirtschaftsstile (‘economlc s叩les') which, in tum, are dependent upon secular changes in the prevaìling spirìtual dimate.τhus he concluded that the rise of capitalism was due to 'the intellectual revolution of the sixteenth centu巧， marked 均在 totally new relìgious attitude. 气lthough he presented his own findings throughour as being supported by the conclusions of The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit 吃f Capitalism , he was careful to dissociate himself from Weber's economic liberalism, as this was not fa边ionable at the time; he argued. that 到ational Socialism had found the necessary means to restrain the destructive dynamics of capitalism.32 Indeed , National Socialism claimed that ìt had replaced bourgeoìs society and ìts class divisions once and for all. Seen in this petspective all tradìtional socìology which had focused upon bourgeois society was completely outdated. In 1935 Hans Freyer found it necessa可 to defend bourgeois sodology of 出e nineteenth and early twentieth centuries against wholesale condemnation, even though he shared the 飞riew that the National Socialist revolution had in principle superseded bourgeois sociery户 He pointed in particular to 也e continuing importance of the work of Ferdinand Tönnies, and likewise that of Max Weber.34 But this was oflitde avaìL German sociology came to be preoccupied with the themes of G盯man 市lkdom' and Gemeinschaft , while interest in Web旷s work almost disappeared. Instead Weber's sociological thought found a new home abroad , no的ly in the United States. Understandably, Raymond Aron's attempts to fam过lanze French scholarship with German social thought a

180

The Rediscovery ifMax weber

capitalism was taken up everywhere, in Great Britain, in France,3S in Italy, in the United States and even in J在pan. On the whole, however, the. response was a mixed and qualified 01批R. H. T awney discussed at consider动le leng在 Weber's thesis that Puritanism had been one of the roots of modern capitalism, arn飞lmg 在t the rather 电ua1ified conc1 usion that there had been a 1ink between Puritanism and the rise of capita1ism but that it was not a causal 七ut rather a circumstantial 0挝，3<' In 19巧 Maurice Halbwachs directed the attentîon ofFrench scholarship to W出er's interestîng thesis about a direct re1 atîonship between religious attitudes and the development of capitalism. 37 Two years later Henri Sée reported on Weber's and Som汩的 conf1ictîng interpretations in a rather sceptîcal vein只 On thewhole 轧'eber's views found full approval nowhere, but his analytîcal power and his remarkable gift for describing complex historical processes in extraordinarily precise ideal响typical form met with universal respe口. But beyond this aspect ofWeber little was known ofhis work, except perhaps his studies on ancient histo巧， and on the ancient and medieval city, though o n1y among the specia1ists in 由lS P在rtîcul在r field. 丁his situation changed in the 1930s , for a numbe主 of reasons. In the first pl在ce it should be borne in mind that Weber's idεas were brought to Great Britain and the United States by many social scientists who had le丘 Germany for po1iti时 cal reasons. The most f主ithful，出oug如 not necessarily most inf1 uentîal , was Paul Ho出gsheim. perhaps the most imprεssive was Joseph Schumpeter and the most original Al丘ed Schurz. Schutz later develop叫 a social philoso庐y which may be described as a fusion ofHusserl and Max Web时， a phenomenology with strong Weberian elements which subsequently was to prove highly in f1 uential in the Angloδaxon world. A special position must be allotted in this context to Karl Mannheim. Perhaps more than most other German sociologists Mannheim was under the spell of Weberian thought which continued to be in f1 uential in Heidelberg even after Weber's premature death in 1920. M在nnheim planned to publish a major study of Max Weber, and Web的 publisher Paul Siebeck had 在lready entered into an 在greement with 汩汩站out it; it w在s origìnally to be entitled ‘Wissenscha蚀。ziologische Analysen zur gegenwärti在enDen站在ge: Drei Essays über M. Webe玄， Troeltsch, und Sche1er'βociological analyses of t

Max Weber in Modern Sodal Thought

181

value-attitudes which themselves are not su句ject to scientific verification but are a matter of the individt叫's su 良jective choìce. 41 His studies 011 conserv挝lsmcon叩 tinue in Weber's tradition inasmuch 豁出ey are a fine example of historical sociology. But by 1933 Mannheim was in deep despair, since his great hope that a core ofliberal social thinkers might have given the course of 白erman history a different turn had proved to be in vai 旷2 His 七ook Man and Socie守 in an Age of Reconstruction ， 白 rst published in 1940卢 in many ways builds upon 冒出enan foundations. In particular it takes up Weber's theme offormal rationality versus substantive ratio叫ity (he caIJs it ‘ functiona l' versus ‘ substantive' rationality)44 and its consequences for the destiny of man ìn the age of mass socìety. Mannheim's ÌntellectuaÌ ìndebtedness to Max Weber still awaits a proper schola r1y assessment. It would appear that he helped (0 spread VJeberìan themes and Weberian approaches to the study of social reality particularly in the English academic community, although in a ra出er muted and indirect manner卢 旺。wever， the man who did the most to make Weber known as a great sociologist outside Germany was Ta1cott Parsons, who during his student years ìn Heide1b吨 in the 限制 had come into close contact with the Weberian tradition, though not with Weber himsel f, who had already dìed inJune 1 仰。­ In his important work The Structure of Soâal Action , fìrst pub1ished in 1937, Parsons presented Weber and 七is work in full to the American public for the fìrst time , in coniunction with studies on Durkheim and Pareto. He did 白兔， however, in the context of his own sociological approach, namely the development of a general socìological theory of social action which subsequently came to be known as structural functionalism. To some degree Weber's casuis盯 of different ìdeal or (rather) pure 巧pes of social action was used by Parsons as a launching-pad for his own theory. In a notable contrast to the trends in con由 temporary German sociology, which had turned away 击。m Max Weber because hìs interpretative sociology had barred all substantive philosop坠lzmg 岭。ut history, Parsons was attracted by its formal如 character. In his own presentation of京leb时's sociology Parsons emphasized above all the theoretìcal aspects ofhis work产 He paid particular attentìon to the casuìstry of ideal 可pes in the last part of Economy and Sociei亨， 飞叮thollt fully 在scertaining， however, 在at the syst i

182

丁'he Rediscovery 吃fMaxWeber

more than a generarion Am erican social thought considered Weber's sociology primarilyas an outstanding example of theorerical sociology. Edward Shils's publicarion of an Englîsh edirion ofWeber's methodological essays in 1949, surprisingly, did little to correct this onesided view. lndeed, Shils himself assumed that Weber's efforts were aimed at developing a ‘general theo矿， although t七is had been only partly achiev叫， 1n 吐le fìrst two chapters of Economy and Society .47 This assumprion, however, was based upon false premises, at 在ny rate if Weber's methodological essays 在re taken as a point of reference. Weber had had somet坠ing different in mind , namely the meaningful reco扣 struction of particular segments of social reality in the process of rime, as seen in the light of parricul盯 cultural values, and not the development of a general social theorγcapable of more or less universal applicarion. Li kewise the 记s­ torical dimension which was a built-in feature ofWeber's conc叩tualizarions tended to be largely overlooked. lt was not rea1ized for a long rime 也atWeber's ideal-typical models about, say，七ureaucracy， social strarifìcarion or c1 ass structurεcan be used in a m阳ningful manner only if they are app1ied to social systems s 吨jected to 吨nifìαnt change over time. Bureaucracy was，扣留出的 飞n.ew， not just a particular type of social insri也 rion; it was a form of insriturionalization of human acrion which was likely to induce signifìcant social change. While ìt provìded a degree of effìciency for social action almost unknown in traditional socieries , ìt had a far-reaching impact upon the lifeconduct of the indivìdual , with momentous long-term consequences for the cultural system. 丁o put it another way, in Am erican sociology Weber's ideal-typìcal conceptual泣arions had all too 0丘en been taken in isolarion from their original context and considered aS descriprive models of empirical reality, whereas Weber had designed them as instruments for a meani吨ful interpretarion of social reality from the vantage-point of specifìc cultural values. However, even in this distorted version Web的 ideal types proved most fruitful in encouraging sociological inqui町， as is witnessed , Înter alia , by the development of organized sociology in the United Sta艺es in the 1950S and 1960s卢 The distor唰­ tions in M祖 Weber's image, as it developed in the United States, were to some degree aggravated by the fact that satisfactory translarions of h

Max weber ín Modern Socia! Thought

18 3

d衍栩ndt的heS 斗 :pírítofCa 呼 pí山 tal屿 i衍sm衍1 点1 孜 193 8 严 P ro 仰 Vl凶 de付 d as叩 timl时 dl出 E沁s fÎ岛 or ìntens 四 s幻lve re 衍search 如 i 1只ltω O

Ma阻x\ 宙'f.Je出 be盯r's川d如 1冶 1悦佣 0U ug 阱 hti剖 叶 n 1寸japan 肌1. 叶 .j 叶异ap 严a剖 阳肘 n1冗es忧e interest in his work went back as far as

1905 , but it w剖 onlyafter 1945 that a spectacul红 renaissance of interest in Max Weber set in which was of an entirely different order. Weber's thought helped the japanese to brìdge the glaring gap between a feudalist past and a modernist future; it helped japanese society to come to terms with post斗 945 conditions. Weber was considered a thinker who could help the japanese people ro escape from the Za ube号arten (enchanted garden) of magic beliefs which so far had been dominant in japanese thinking. However, right from 也e start both Weber and Marx were considered to be representatives of modernity and a rational social order, not, as in the \llest, as opposites. Moreover , in japan the historic在i dimension of京Teber's sociology was considered particularly useb说， as it proved helpful in the rational reassessment of the japanese past, in contrast to a present which was domínated by Western industria1ism and the in f1 ux of Western values. Thus his analyses of patrimonial and patri挺chal social structures were considered particularly helpful , whereas in the United States it was the theory ofbureaucracy which attracted greatest interest. so ln a way the gradual decline ofTalcott Parsons飞‘structural functionalism' as the dominant sociologic在1 school in the United States and the rise of empirical socìal research in the 1950S and 1960s to hegemonic status intensifìed t挝5 丘ag­ mented and, in certain respects, distorted image ofWeber's sociology. But this is only a p在rt of the story. Gradually his wo业 became much better known, and ínterest in his work widened in scope. This was the case in particular for the sociology of world religions which was now considered to be a central 在emeof Weber's work, while previously attention had been focused almost exclusively upon the Protestant Ethic . But again most attention was given to the theoretical aspects, wher岱s it tended to be overlooked that 出e 岳双dings about the interreIa艺ions坠ip between religious attitudes , specifìc forms of social conduct and economic activity were embedded in ideal-typical reconstructions of particular segments of universal 如istory; often this was consid叹ed merely inci

18 4

The Redisco附ry ofMax Weber

had found new tεaching posítions in 由e Uníted States did their best to make Weber's work better known, such as Paul Honigsheim and Ka rl Lö wenstein. 1n 且ís in f1 uential book Consciousness and Socie伊 Thel之eorientation 号fBuropean Socia! Thought 1890叫 1930 H. Stuart Hughes described Max Weber alongwith Sigmund Freud as one of the ourstanding thinkers on the eve of the age of modernity who revitalized the great tradìtions of the Enlightenment by demo 1ishing the b在stÌons ofad鸣enerate positivism and a formalized idealism, which had become empty formulas , there与r opening up new ways of perceiving hístorical reality without p尺judice and illusíons，在nd free of the shal10w beHef in progress that had domìnated European social thought in the níneteenth centu巧户 The upsurge of interest in Max Weber in the West can be explained in part also ìn polirical terms. As ís well known , Weber always rejected any attempt at a substanrive reconstrucrion of history. 丁his was 在ppropriate at a rime when all 宅。listic' reconstructions of 且isto巧， as was forcefully argued by Karl Popper in ThePo陀咛吃f Historicism , had 在llen into disrepute, as they we主e suspected of leading potenrially to totalitarianism. Weber's sociology was fundamentally individualisric, and , in spite of his stron军 leanings towards narionalism, it was 七roadly in line with líberal thought. Nω-liberalism， the dominant political creed of the day, pleaded for a return to the market economy and 在 social order bui 1t upon individual initiarive, while governmental interference should be restricted to an absolute minimum. The examples of past and present forms of totalitarian government gave credence to a stric t1y individua1ist reconstruction ofWestern socieries, in line with Tocquevi1le rather than Rousseau , who was often considered a precursor of totalitari在n rather than liberal dεmo­ cra可. Max Weber's social thought appeared to be an ideal expression of these criteria for a free world. Accordingly, Weber's híghly effective cririque of bureaucraric government an!Ì state omnipotence w在s received quite favour均ly. Furthermore, he off位叶， or 挝 least it so appeared , a consistent 在nd convincing alternarive to socialism which in the er在 of the Cold War w在s seen to produce ever more oppressíve governmental 七ureaucracíes and human míse咛.1ndeed， Weber's critique of过1 centrally directed economies provided telli吨 arguments against Marxism and its curr

Max Weber ín Modern Socía/ Thought

r85

his scholarly and also his political writings. But it tended to emphasìze the empirìcal side of his work, while the ullderlying philosophical assumptions, which were not always ìn lìne with present-day views, were dealt with only perfunctorily户 τhe Nietzschean element in Weber , which was not ìn fashion at the time, was conveniently left out. Nor was the extreme radicality of many of his political opinìo l1s given adequate expression, particularly with regard to contempora巧 German power polìtics. Al l in all Max Weber was presen ted here as a sensible man who was almost always taking the ‘ middle ro时， instead of as the radic过 thinker who loathed all comprornise solutions 在nd who always sought ω push intellectual issues 胎出eir utmost limits ra出口 than settle for sensible halfway solunons. Even though the American reception of Max Weber's work had ìn many ways been onesìded, incomplete and , in certain respec民主ather dìstorted, it did not fail in addition to leave its mark upon the development of sociological thought in Europe, notably in the Federal Republic of Germany.lt is often said, with a great deal ofjustifìcation, that the revival ofinterest in Max Weber in the Federal Republic was due, above all , to American inf1 uence. Seen in this pe spective the Deutscher Sozio/气gentag at Heìdel如rg in 1964, which was devoted to the commemoration of the looth anniversa巧。fWeber's birth, can be considered an ìmportant encounter of American and German scholarship on Max Weber. 1t signifìed a revitalized interest in the Federal Republic in Max Weber's work and a willingness to take 哼 the running where Am erican scholarship had le丘 of( 丑。-wever， things were not as simple as 也at. In the fìrst decade after 1945 German interest in Max Weber had ac相ally been rather limited. While he was the su向ject of a number of e叫ýS ìn a few learned as wel1 as popular journals, research into his work was slow to recommence. In the fìrst decade af扣r 1945 Ge rman sociological research on Max Weber could in no way match the large number of publications by American scholars. It is a commonplace that after 1945 白e ìnfluence of American social science on German sociology was paramount. However, it must be realized that in 1945 there was in fact no straightforward break wit且也e past in sociology, just as inmany other acadernic disciplin饵， and that American, and indeed Western, influence made itself felt 0均 after a considerable delay. ln the fìrst decade a丘er 1945 West Germar

•

186

The Rediscovery ofMax Weber

worked hard to see Am仅ican sociological methods adopted in the Federal Republic of Germany. However , those who took their guidance from Ameri叩 can empirical social science were not particularly interested in Max Weber. ln fact it was primarily philosophers , po1itical scientists and historians who turned to Max Weber as a great social thinker in the tradition of Niccolò Machiavelli and Al exis de 丁ocqueville. 旺。wever，由公 was a slow and cun也er-… some process. ln 1946 Karl ]aspers republished his short essay on Max Weber (written in 1932) in 咄 whi 让ich 始 ha 叫 db 剖讪 blar 阳阳 a刽m 础口1叫 eed 由 t 』检 e Ge口 rm 川 1a肌 n nation 如 n附 hav 川 v given 白r 虱挝i总s great man a char缸lCe. But for the 6rst time being the book apparently did not have the resounding success which ]aspers had hoped fOr. ln 1950 Eduard Baumgarten published an essay with the imprεssive title ‘ Die Bedeut幽 ung Max Webers für die Gegenwart' in Die Sammlut咳， which was an influential journal at the rime. lt focused on Weber's lif泣。ng search for a meaningfullife甲 conduct in the modern,‘disenchanted' world. 丁his should have appealed to his contemporaries，在iven the intellectual climate in the Federal Republic of Germany in the early 1950s. Max Weber was rediscovered as one of rhe few great figures who had correctly indicated the political pa白 which rhe Germans ought to have followed in order to avoid the catastrophe of 1945. Howev缸， lt is rather significant that it was not his substantive political or sociological views but rather the the。可 of 动stention from value飞judgemenrs which Baumgarren considered to be of greatest relevance to the intellectual situation of the ear与 1950s, which was cha附加ized above all by 驴 ge臼 伊I阳 al 巾 d 1S幽 弘 sill i过11uω 诅山王骂$挝10n ment and di沁sone扭 nt也以辛挝tior践1. Baumgarten put it as follows: to learn from Max Weber meant in the given situation above all 气o understand at least in rudimenta巧 terms what in fact happened to us 检岳出 1933 ， and 七etween 1933 and today，在nd also that these evεnts still determine our lives, however indirec t1y.'57 ltw在s the philosophical aspects ofWeber's wor主 which were initially considered of primary importance, rather his sociological theories or 如is politìcaI views. lndeed, in their philosophical aspects one can observe an almost unbroken continui可 ofw加r studies from the early 1930S onward. Dieter Henrich's analysìs of Ma;充 Webers Wissenschaftslehre , published in 1952, in fact fo11owed in the

Max Weber in Modern Socia! Thought

18 7

ing to 1如nn巾， defìned 均‘a sequence of value-interpret在rions'.58 We need not discuss here in detail whether Henric且's interpretation can be considered corrcct or not. Yet it defìnitely located Max Weber in the context of the cultural sciences rather than seeìng in him a pioneer of modern social science. To be sure, this interpretation was considerably removed from the Parsonian interpretation ofWeber prevalent in the 飞Jnited States at the time. It also had lìttle in common with the opmlOns on Weber then prevailìng among German sociologists. By contra认 considera七le and growing interest in Max 乳Teber was developing among historians 在nd political scienrists. The historians discovered in Max w出er a sociologist who paved the way for a closer coωoperarion between history and the social sciences, which would not require histo咛 to abandon altogether its methodological tradirionsand notably its reliance upon the tech吨 位iques of understanding and empathy. On the basis ofWeber's methodolog}飞 the study of individual phenomena and theorerical analysis could be pursued alongside one another. Moreover, Weber's ideal types proved to be immen优ly useful to the historian's work, as 丁heodor Schieder in particular was quick to realize and to preach to his f浊。w historians.59 Weber's methodology seemed to supply the conceptual (Ools for a modern form of typological histo叩 which follovved in Jacob Burckhard t's Eootsteps while avoiding his logical imprecision and his often too unconnected methods of reasoning. lndeed , as Stuart Hughes aptly remarked , Webe室主epresented a point of conjuncture between history and the social sciences at a moment when the latter were turning a blind eye to the historical dimension of social change. In the 1950S and 1960s, lárgely under the inf1 uence ofMax Weber, German historiography slowly lowered its defences in relation to the social sciences. It was 功。ve al1 Theodor Schieder, but 辜Iso Werner Conze, who led the way towards a new social history working with idωl-typical concepts. ln 也is uphill struggle for a methodological reorientation of German historiography the intellectual weaponry was largely derived from Weber. We may conclude that in the 1950S it was primari1 y Max Weber's methodology and. his philosophical views which were at the centre of the revival of interest in his work. The sociological profession was somewhat slow to follow, and it was largely 出e influence of Am erican sociology wh

I88

The Rediscovery ofMax Weber

methodological essays had been to find a new direction for the socìal sciences which would lead beyond 5chmoller and Menger and w且ìch would not involvε opting for either school of social inqui巧，出εhistoricist in the former case and the theoretic在1 i往出台 latter. Even so T er也ruck's final conclusion was enrirely negative: 'As 在伊neral theo巧 Max Weber's methodology had lost all its significance for us today. We cannot build upon its premises, concepts, postulates and conclusions any more, unless we are prepared to sacrifice our own understanding of sociological research, of sociological thω巧， or our own norion of the scientific objectives of sociology.'óO T er也ruck's conclusion was that 出e methodological essays had been important for Weber only inasmuc坠 as they had helped him 在nd his way to empirical sociological research. By I 90Ó 可1eber was, or at least intended to 怡com龟 an empirical sociologist, and not a ‘ cultural scientis t'.丁hese findings were certainly in line with the trends in German and indeed international sociology during the 19S0S and 1960s. The social sciences were about to move away from Weber's macro-sociology and to embark upon empirical social research 刊出盯 than upon general theorizing. While empirical social research was definitdy on the advance, partly owing to the strong inf1uences 丘。m the United 5tate乌拉e intellectual scene in the Federal Repu桂ic was dominated 七y the controversy betweεn logical positivism on the one hand, and the Frankfurt 5chool on the other. The Frankfurt 5chool fought a sort of rearguard batde agaìnst the risìng tide of empirical social science whìch demanded that scholars should concentrate upon augmenring instrumental knowledge rather than conducting ideological battles. On the who栓， empirical social research won the day, al也ough the defence of grand theory conducted by Jürgen Habermas attract世 conside主动le support from neigl由ouring disciplines. In this debate 引起ber's sociology remained on the sideli挝s.lt was used 均七oth sides primarily as 在mmunition for their own cause, and not so much for its own sake. In view of this it is not surprising to see that it was Max Weber's theory of abstention from value气judgements (though understood in a 肘。-positivist manner) which was given prominent attention and not his substantive sociological writings.ú1 At the Weber Congress in Heidel七erg in I964 the postulate of abstention from value-judgeme

Max Weber in Modern Socia/ Thought politic在 1

18 9

thought had been influenced by political value-options of a controversial nature, like his explicit identific在 tion with the German narion-state, not surprisingly under such conditions, was received with a great deal of misgiving.<)J In some degree this was due to the fact that sociologists and political scientÏsts had followed di丘erent patterns of evaluation in their reading of 百eber. The social scientists welcomed Weber's sociological wo也 precisely because it adhered strictly to the principle of abstention 丘0111 value飞judge­ ments. Political science, on the other hand , was strongly influenced 问'a revival of natural law; for 在is reason many political scientist5 tended to take the opposite view. They treated the lar萨ly formalistic character ofW.命的 thω巧F of politics with suspicion. 丁his is reflected ìn the rather cool reception of Weber's political ìdeas 恃 contempora町 political science. From the very start Max Weber's polìrical writings had receìved considerable attenrion. German democracy was short of father figures, and Max Weber quali在ed as one of the m. After all , he had been among the few de主ermined liberals who had already publicly advocated the introductìon of p时iamentary government in Germany before the First World War, alld who had critìcized the authoritarian 岳atures of German polirics in hìs own tìme in the strongest terms conceivable; obviously hìstory had proved him right on thìs point. However, for 出e rime being 1ittle substanrive research into hìs political thought was actually undertaken. It would appear 由at there was some hesι tancy ìn doing 50, inasmuch as Weber's often rather extreme polirical views did somerimes cause irritarion. In 1957 Arnold Bergstraesser published an importa挝 essay on Max Weber's inaugurallecture at Freiburg. Here 如 voiced hìs disagreement with the ambivalence of some of Weber's key posirions rather strongly. Al though he was 创1 of praise for 宙eber's ìntellectual genius , he c在utìoned hìs readers with regard to a number of 岳atures in hìs polirical and philosophical thought. Bergstraesser took exceptìon in partìcular to W齿的 notìon that the eternal struggle between dì岳阳t values cannot be decided in any way whatsoever by scienrifìc means. Thìs dìd not seem acceptable at a time when a revival of fundamentalist thì成i吨， notably in terms of natural . law , was taking place in the Feder址 Repu注ic. Neither was Bergstraesser particularly happy

190

γhe

Redisco何守吃fMaxWeber

we cannot fìnd it there , f己r the notion of scholarship upon which it is built is value-neutral; in fact, it is derived from an agnostic epistemology:ó~ Wilhelm Hennis attacked M在x Weber even more harshly in his essay ‘ Zum Problem der deutschen Staatsanschauung' for his extreme subjectivism and for the utter hollowness of his idea of the state. According to Hennis, his purely technocratic conception of the state completely omitted a vital dimension, namely any substantive notion of politics without which no sort of public order can thrive户丁hat is to say, neither those who argued that modern constitutional democracy derives its legitìmacy and ìts ethos 丘。m fund在mental ethical principles nor those who looked for a neo-Aristotelian model of modern po1itics were pr守在red to accept M拟宙eber's theo巧。f governmen t. In part 出is can be accounted for by the prevailing belief that a democracy C主n survive only if it is bui1t upon a set of value-principles unquestionably accepted by al1 the citizens. Jn the 19SoS it was the common opinion 也at the Weimar Republic had collapsed especi在lly because Ît had practised a policy of value-neutrali巧r even towards its determined enemies. Carl SchmÎt t's rather cynical theorγof parliamentary government and 比 plea for 在 system of presidential rule whìch could do without the outdated mechanism of parliamentary control was well known, and it was considered an ugly example ofhow things went wrong. Indeed , Johannes Winckelmann, who devoted his li岳 to bringing 埠。ut a revival of interest in M在x Weber, found it necessa叩 to def马时 Weber agaìnst the charge that his theory of democratic government was wholly technocr在tic and devoid of all substantive foundation in moral terms. His fìrst majorbookL号i timität und 1伊 lität in Max Webers Herrschaftssoziologie ，ωfollowed by a series of smaller essays and , 1在ter， by new editions of Weber's writings, 50ught to show that Weber's theory of democratic government, though it had been defìned 问r him as a sub-type of formal legal domination, did in fact contain ‘ immanente Legi timitätsschranken飞也在t is to say inherent barriers to a merely formal-legal interpretation of constitutional government which would consid位 anything correc t1y enacted according to the usual procedures as legitimate. In other words，百inckelmann tried to prove once and for all that Max Weber and Carl Schmitt had nothing in common, and that there was no justi在cation at al1 for attac

Max Weber in Modern Social Thought

191

m 在etting Theodor Heuss , then President of the Federal Republic , to write 孟 n introductìon to a new edition of the Gesammelte Politische Schri后en ， which underlined the importance of 骂1eber's political views and political theory for present-day Germa町， even thou拉过euss was careful to point out that Weber had died iong before the ri优 to power of charismatic figures who did their rat由 h臼 t出 ha扭 nωoperate within its utmost to destroy parliamentary democracy, 阳 C∞ ons 岭st饺ra幻int岱s and mak 肚e 让 1 tsucαce 岱ssft叶 1过1.( On thewl怡 h阳 1ol 01e， however, Weber was seen as one of the precursors of German democracy, and one of those who had always pleaded 岛r a sensible, modest foreign policy which did not tread on everybody's toes at the same time. 丁his view was rudely shaken with the pub1ication of the present author's book Max Weber und die deutsche Politik, 1890-1920 in 1959户 lt became apparent that Weber's political views had not in fact been a blueprint for liberal and democratic views, as had been commonly assumed. Nor had his views on foreign policy been all that sensible, modest or realistic. On the contra巧， it emer在ed that Weber had been an ardent nationa1ist, and that at any rate in his earlier career he had pleaded in almost violent language for a hard-headed policy of imperialist expansio出sm. Even worse，且is concept of charismatic leadership appeared to be disturbingly c10se to fascist notions of plebiscitarian leadership. Nor did his 出∞ry of 'leader democracy' appear 岛。lproof， since it lent itself all too readily to an authoritarian reinterpretation (Carl Schn由 and Roberto Michels had both taken 出is course and had ended up by lending suppo~ to National Sodalism and ltalian fascism respectively). The book caused a major upheaval; a considerable number üf academics at once criticized it in rather vitriolic terms, among them notably Karl L凸wen四 stein, Reinhart Bendi.x and Paul Honigsheim. lndeed, it motiv在ted Löwenstein to put forward his own views on Weber in 在 series of essays. 丁he ∞suing debate was passionate and at times extremely 在crimonious. Not surprisingly, it focused on the issue of whether, and in what sense, Max Weber's views ∞ charismatic leadership had contributed to making the German people ready to fall pr.εyto Hitler's charismatic appeal over and 动ove parliament, and not so much on the su bstantive findings of the book. Nobody paid any attention to the fact that as early as 1944 Jacob Peter Mayer had published a fa

192

The Redíscovery 吃fMax Weber

reform could no longer be mainrained unreservedly. A 出orough reassessment had become necessa町. Certain aspects ofWeber's sociology of domination had caused a few qualms among political scientists 岛r some time previously. lt w器， notably, the theory of charismatic leadership which had always caused considerable uneasiness among political theorists like Karl Joachim Friedrich or Karl Löwenstein, but this had 怡￠口 seen as an isolated aberration 丘。m theright path and not as a structural flaw in Weber's thωry of democratic governmen仁 More conrroversial was the question whether Carl Schmitt's 出eo巧。f decisiol王" ism had to be seen as a direct consequence of Weber's formalistic 出eory of democracy. Furthermore, Weber's role as a German nationalist and a 祉lieverin power po1itics was now also made the subject of a critical rea附岱menr. At the 旦eidelberg Congress 1飞aymond Aron was asked to give 在n authoritative judgement on this issue, presur双边Iy in order to refute once and for all the theses put forward in my book. However, Raymond Aron chose to act as a sort of arbiter rather than as a judge who was to pass a fìnal verdict. In 主IS paperon ‘ Max Weber and power politics' presented on this occasion Aron pointed out that the dispute was perhaps more about recent German history than about 驯s cωou 副 Id not be seriously 电伊伊 时e u 部邸$叩 Max Weber himsel已 哟。se nationalist 飞new t∞ i幻 or黠 1泛 叫 ed d.卢 Instead he 淫 e 机ch 坠10S挺etωo pointout 艺由且 hed 占if1岳 f古时 t岳 errer时 1汉ts附 t衍r主始 ndsi垃扫 nWebe 盯旷 rγ's 面 t 挝nk 虹10 吨 g， 优E 环阶々l阳 O tωd 削阳ch 阳a仰 uω 纣仰饨 F咆弩导， no 仰 ta 呻讪 bl 圳片 1)y its Darwinian, its Nietzschean, its economic 在 nd its Marxian components. J ürgen H边ermas， on the other hand , emphasized, to the dismay of the more .orrhodox of the Weber experts, that Carl Schmitt's decisionism as well as his theo叩 of plebiscitarian rule must indeed be seen as radical consequenc仍 foIlowing on from Weberian premises, even 出ough Weber himself cIearly had not intended ever to go that far. 72 In the end the issue of whether Weber's value-agnosticism coupled with his strong nationalist views and his acceptancεof power po1i tics had a negative impact on the political developments in the 审eimar Republic remained undecìded. However，由is debate was overshadowed by an even more controversial one which had been initiated by Herbert Marcuse. Marcuse had argued that Weber, by assigning to capita1ism a maximum degree of formal ratio政ality in com呻 parison with other so

Max Weber in Modern Socia/ Thot号ht

193

prorests, notably 丘。m American scholars. Emorions were 且19忌， and revealed the ideological concern which l110civated the defence of Max Weber against the critiψe voiced by the le丘， be it radical-liberal or Marxis t. 丁he Heidelberg Congress marked a hígh point of scholarly and public interesr in Max Web也 However， rhis deserves to be qua1ifìed somewhat. For Weber had been rediscovered above all as an empirìcal social scientist, whereas hìs universal-hisrorical conceptualizations had been given litde attention, wìth theexcεptiot冲erhaps， of the Sociology 吃fRel告ion (which was also see叩rimarìly as pioneering empirical researc埠 A如ve all , he was regarded as one of those rhinkers who paved the way for value四丘ee social research. Ernst Topirsch hailed Max Weber for having freed 毛imself 丘。m tradirions which for thousands of years have presented the world to men as ifit were a v在lu←rational order of 也 ings.. . . He was able to dismande these patt盯ns of thought without replacing them by other forms of evaluative interpretation of t挝 umverse川 This statement reflected the great hope of logical positivism that it would be possible to reach an entirely new level of knowledge about social processes by means of value-free empirical social investigation srricdy in line with the principles of instrumental rationality. Similar1y, Daniel Bell had argued that with t且e arrival of empirical social science the classical holistic ideologies were fìnished once and for al l. The age of ideology w都在七out to become a phenomenon of 出e past. This optimistic assumprion was proved wrong by events within only a few years' time. Instead , the late 1960s brought momentous changes in the general political climate of the West. The student movement put a sudden end to the hopes of many social scientists 也筑在 new age free of ideologies was about to begin. Rather , the students voiced rhe widespread dissarisfaction among young people with the complacency and materialism of the older generarion, and 晶。ve all at the complete absence of moral issues worth striving for. A wave of romantic neo-Marxism swept the West and for a while also strongly inf1 uenced ac在demic sociology. Structural functionalism and empirical social research both came und恍如e， for allegedly merely perpetuating the status 伊o. Max Weber's sociology did not escape this general offensive against traditional ‘ bourgeois sociology'. which was accused of being inherently con

194

The Redísco何ry ofMax weber

scepticism regarding technocratic solutions to the pressing pr必lems of the day gave rise to a renewed interest in sociological 白白ries capable of taking the whole of past history into account and providing practical orientation ra出自 由an merely instrumental knowledge. It Ìs t如 is new intellectual climate which explains why by the 1970S there was 在 sudden revival in Max Weber studies. Interest in his work now revived not 社cause he had been the pioneer ofvalue-丘ee social research but conversely because his sociology would appe在r to provide a general orientation while empirical social science had been un动le to deliver 出e goods. It is therefore no mere coincidence thatitwas only after the failure of the socalled student movement and the crisis of the philosophy of social engineering, which had derived much of its inspiration from the empiric在1 social sciences, that interest in Max Weber was on 也e upturn again. It soon gat如red momentum , as is signifìed by the steadily growing number of studies published 伊ar g 伊吨 Schh 扣 时 u1ch 且1阳 t smce 也e ωrly 1970s. Wolf韧 {币白船肌$汉 rs t严 p ubl 讪 l且1S边』祉ed 拉i 狂 19 好 妇2 7 斗吟 )， which used Weber's c在tegories for a reconstruction of 也e 挝story of social 在ou拉t 埠。ut 毛主e emergent industrial system, 在lerted sociologists and historians a1ike to the signifìcance of Weber's theo巧 of bureaucracy in understanding modern indus盯在1 society 主gainst the bacι ground of history.75 S. N. Eisenstadt's studies of civilization, which carry the tradition of Max Weber's universal-historical analysis into new regions , belo吨 in a similar categ。可.76 The following decade saw a rich and constantly widening stream of work on Max Weber, which focused particularly on the theme of rationalization and its soci泣， economic and religious roots. The renewed demand for macro-sociological theory which could provide not only instrumental knowledge 沁t also in也rmation about different valueoptions and about the signifìcance of the development of modern industrial society provided the stimulus for a universal re飞rival of Weber studies. Moreover, it became dear that the neo-positivist recognition of 始x Weber as 在 pioneer of value-free social science was partly based on a misunderstanding. It goes without saying that he had conducted a lifelong campaign against valuejudgements in 由e social sciences. He always objected to any SOrt of research which propagated ideologies wrapped in a scholarly disgui

Max Weber in Modern Social Thought

195

sidered the 且istorical dimension to 检 an essential part of sociological inqui巧.It is the great strength ofhis sociology that it poses its questions against the backcloth of universal history. Through ideal-typical reconstructions of particular segments of.hisωrical reality considered to be of signifìcance for the future of mankind as we know it today, sociology seeksωenlighten us 动。ut alternative developmental paths and their r，εspective consequences for human beings. This circumstance explains why in recent years research on Max Weber has experienced an upsurge of unpreced似ed proportions, not only in 出e West, but also in the countries of the communist bloc.lts achievement in pinpointing the key issues of our modern world and in suggesting possible 1ines of inquiry regarding the fundamental problems of value is still unsurpassed. Moreover, his sociology appears to provide a good point of d守arture for macro-sociological research which seeks to provide practical orientation without supplying merely ideological answers. What is more , the social sciences have now rediscovered the importance of the historical dimension. As Ralf Dahrendorf pointed out recently, this also recommends Max Web盯's sociological thought to modern social science, even though empiric过 rese在rch has now advanced far beyond him (which he himselfhas described 豁出e natural course of things in the realm of scholarship)户 This is another reason 岛主 the astounding wor1 dwide renaissance of inter，εst in Max Weber which we are witnessing today. ltwould appεar that, among others, the 岛llowil宅 avenues of inquiry in and beyond Max Weber scholarship are being pursued: research into his idealtypical reconstruction of Western history and the process of rationalization;78 research into the relationship between re1igious attitudes, socia1 conduct and economic activities in both Western and non-Westem cultures (a s吨Ject increasingly being discussed by scholars from non响Westem countries); Web旷S concept of social change and the dichotomy of value-oriented and instrumental social action 何hich is closely linked to 出e problem of formal and substantive rationality);79 Weber's contribution to the study ofhistory严 aJ+d his theory of politics and legitimacy, whic且 attaches priority to the question of how individual fr机dom can survive in modern bureaucr在tic societies, whether capitalist or socialist. Besides these areas ofinqui巧， there is renewed

196

如e b 加r 阶 γ 加e 寂 h Red 硝isc仰咛吃ofMa 阳 xW 阶旨扮拗伽 旷

Weber's choice of approaches to the soci过 investigation of realir:y; but one ought also to take into acçount the condusions at which he arrived. they undoubtedly far transcend this 电uestion. They try to give concrete answers to the quesrion how and under wh在t po1irical and social conditions in the course of history a personalli岳阳conduct may prevai1 which al1 0ws for responsibility ~nd crωtivity， in spite of theperennial working of institutional forces to the co扣 trary that tend to stif1 e all individual initiative. There wil1 always be disagreement about the interpretation ofMax Weber's ultima祀吨jectives as a schola玄， a citÌZ en and a pe附m 叫i狂it巧yof 咛 句 greωωa 创tin 钱挺z优 telle 缸Cα ω机 侃 栩 m t 山 u la 世190U v 盯r. However, the absoute honesty with which he app!oached the problems ofhis own day wil1 always gain our adlllÌfation, even if we no longer share all his views and his values.

Notes

CHAPTER 1

POUTICS AND SCßOLARSHIP

1 Karl]aspers, Max Weber: Po /i tiker, Forscher, Philosopher (Munich. 1958), p. 4. 2 See Reinhard Bendìx and Güntcr Rot丸 Scholarship and Partisansh护: Essays on Max Weber (Berkeley, 197 1), pp. 55 -6. 3 C( Peter Theincr, Sozialer Liberalismus und deutsche Weltpolitík: Friedric /Z Nauman im Wilheln仰危chen Deutschland (1860鹏 Z 声圳(Baden-Baden， 1983). 4 For the followìng comments on this point, see Mommsen, Max Weber , pp. 154-67; 军nglis主 εdn， pp.143睛 54.

5 On these 在nd the followìng statements，主eeMWG ， I/ 岭，也trodu~tion'， pp. 3ff. 6 军xtensive documentary evidence ofMax Weber's electoral campaign work for the German Democratic Party (DDP) can be found in MWG ， γ16， pp. 343f( 7 lbid., p. 273. 8 Quote-d in ibid., p. 21 , n. 53. 9 Cf. GPS , p. 532: 'professional politicians wìthout a vocation, i.e. wìthout the inner charismatic qualities that make a leader\ 10 MWG ， I/ 巧， p.4 2 5.

MWG , 1116 , p. 98. GPS , p. 13. 13 C( GASS , pp. 4∞…… 1 ， 4 12， 413- 1 4. II C(

I2

14 C( ib泣， p.4∞. 15τbis argument appears again and again, especially in Max Weber's election speeches of 1918-19. C f. MWG , 1116. 16 For a more detailed elaboration of this aspect ofMax Weber's theory of democratic rule, see chapter 2 above. 17 On the relationship between Max Weber and Roberto Michels，附 chapter 6 above. 18 WuG , p. 568; EaS , p. 985.

Notes to Chapter 2

198

Cf: Mom担忧民

Max Weber , p. 363; English edn, p. 339. This asp创t of my incer-… pretation of Max Weber's position was gìven a critical reception by among others Gustav Schmidt in his book Deutscher Hìstorismus und der Übe啻'at弩 zur parlamen翻 tarischen Democratie: Untersuchungen zu den politischen Gedanken von Meinecke, Troeltsch , Max Weber , in NPL , 21 (1976); and David Beetham, Max Weberand the 刀'Ieory cf Modern Politics (London, 1974). The sources give a clear message, howevε汇 A solution to the problem is not to be found in a harmonization of Max Weber's argumencs , bur, if at all, in the full representation of the antinomical structure ofhis t怡。叩 of democratic rule. 20 GPS , p. 544. μC( W olfgang Sc挝uchter， We吵eiheit und Verantwortut弩'sethik: Zum Verhåltnìs von Wissenscha卢 und Po /i tik beì Max Weber (Tübingen, 1971). 22 In a lecture to the Staatswissenscha在liche Vereinigung in Vienna on 25 October 1917, about which we have only a report 问 the Neue Freie Presse , Weber appears to have subsumed parliamencary governmenc under the rype of value叩rational1eg在i rule; but he certainly a怡ndoned this solution again ve叮 soon. C( Neue Freie Presse , no. 1910卒，却 October 1917, p. 10. 乌 3 WuG , p. 156; EaS , p. 268. 24 GPS , p. 544. 2S Wílhelm Hennis，将在x Weber's "Liberalismu产， quoted from the manuscript version (p. 叫 3O 吵}.Cα(aω: 必 alIso Wi过II怯lelmH 淀 险， ennis， Ma邸 xυUJj助 轮 v F饪 E伽

19

p.5 二.

CHAPTER 2

T1王E ANTINOMICAL STRUC丁URE OF MAX WEBER'S POLmCAL THOUGHT

1 Karl Jaspers, Notizen zu Martin Heíd细er ， ed. H. Sahner (Ba业， 197泞， p. 21 5. 2 Mommsen , Max Weber , pp. 13f(; En草lish edn, pp. 21ff. 3 Jürgen Kocka, 'Kontroversen 益ber Max Weber', NPL , 21 (1976), pp. 282f(; David Beetham, Max Weber and tlle 妇的守 cf Modern Politícs (Lol1don, 1974); Anchony Giddens, Politícs and Sociology in the ThougJiμfMax Weber (Londo泣， 1972). 4 In concrast to oldcr incerpretations, Kocka ('Koncroversen') stre附s thc importancc of 'enlightenmenc-rational' elemc l1ts in Webcr's thought and comes to the conclusion that ‘ If one takes seriously Weber's orienc在tion to such meta-values, Ít becomes impossible to acccpt the vicw 也在t this support for a public sphere and civil maturiry, for parliamencarism and democratization, wiεre all instrumental means to the ends of the natio和state and of power-politics.' See also Giddens, Politics , p. S5; Bcctham, Max Weber , pp. 11 3f( C( also Gcrhard Hufnagel, Krití走 als Beruf Der 走r协che

Gehalt im Werk Max Webers (Frank归 rt， 197 牛 pp.102寸， who 1邸 choscn

Weber 在e critic' as the focus of 副主 presel1tation， arguing that 在e critic who wants to fight a萨inst thc currencs ofhis time still has to plungc into thosc currcnt罢了 Thcsc pragmatiεil1terpretations tend, however, to over1 ook the true span of Weber's thou恶ht， reducing it to routinc, cvcryday positions. As expedicnt as this may bc , it does not correspond to Weber's own intel1tions.

Notes to Chapter 2 5 GPS.

199

p. 306.

6 MWG. 1I 巧 .p整二 34. ?汪红l-Siegbert Rehberg. ‘民ationales 技andeln

als grossbürgεrliches Ak rionsmodell: Thesen zu elmgen handlungstheoretischen lmplikationen der "Soziologischen Grundbegriffe" Max Webers'.κZS'S. 31 (197 号， pp. 199-236; at p. 2乌2. 8 1concur here with M. Rainer Le psius, 'Max Weber in München', Zeitschrififür Sozio懦 logie , 6 (1977), p. 114, who, s阳ting from the inconsistencíes evidenr in Weber's political position, goes 0钱 to show that 出s phenomenon is related to the peculiar character ofhis socíological 部ethod: ‘Hiscomp在rarive socíal research into different systems of domination led him to the view that, givεn 出e changing condirions of interests, there was no ideal order which could be insriturionalized permanently, nor could one deduce a hierarchy of ulrimatεvalues.' The discussion of Weber's socíology 安II all too easily into the tempta柱。n of isolaring his valueτjudgements from the context of his compara公罚出e。可 of institutions and of overlooking the antinornies between formal and substanrive, instrumental and value ra杖。nality， 咱ich Weber always took such pains to elabor在te.' lt was precisεly Weber's concern ‘ to dramatize these antinomies.' It is the purpose of this essay to el埠。ra te on these antinomies in the political sphere. At any rate , what distinguishes my po主ition from that of Lepsius is 出ξvicw that the antinomical structure of his thought was not sìmply methodologìcaUy deterrnined but that it actually seems to pεrvade his whole life. C( 'A liberal in despair', in 帘。lfgang J. Mommsen, The Age cif Bureaucracy: r. Per.伊ctivω on the Po /i tical ThouglμfMax Weber (Oxfo时， 1974), pp. 9S f1在

:

9 到 Edu 踹a叶 Ba 剧 u 山I口I 吨 als仰 o Ro 命 bεert 只t 卫剧 den 叽， Pol阳 i缸tical 剖 Le， 矿'ad， 命 ers劝 h争

and Ni，泊hil 出 i扛i忿沁sm 妇1: A 挠 Stud命 y 吃ofWe 彷衔 衍εer and Ni化et邸忽豁椒 b sκche

(付丁amp 严a，刚结; and Wolfgang J. Momm忧民 Max 附加r: Gesellsch在 Po/itik und

Geschichte (Fra球furt， 1974), pp. 128ff.; and Eug告ne Fleisch~ann，‘De Weber à Archives europée~附s de sociol，号化， S (1964).

Nie泣sche'，

10 Cf. le仅仅 to Roberto Miche纭， 4August 19憾， Fondazione Luigi Einaudi，丁urin. GPS , p. 176. 12 1 位 Giddens， Po/itic豆， one already fìnds, almost counter to his intentions，革 partial recognition of the antinornical position which emerges here. 13 See letter to Roberto Michels, 4 August 1908 , Fondazione Luigì Einaudi，丁unn. 14 Ibid. 1S Ibid. 16 Letter to Roberto Michels, 6 November 1907, FondazionεLuigì Einaudi， τurin: ‘ Political de

II

200 22 23 24 25

Notes to Chapter 2

GPS , p. 544. GPS , pp. 63-4. GPS , p. 64.

For a more detailed 在nalysis of this point，就 Mommsen， Max Weber: Gesellschafi, PoUti走 und Geschíchte , pp. 123ff. 26 13ernhard Schäfers,‘Ein Rundschreiben Max Webers zur Sozialpolitik', Soziale Welt 18 (1967) , pp. 26 Iff.; and Mommsen, Max We忡， pp.126时7. 27 揣在x Weber, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalíst纭， trans. Talcott Parsons, lntroduction by Antho均 Giddens (New York, 1958). 28 Mommse民 Max J'1;伽r: Gesellschafi, Po /i tik und Geschichte , pp. 156世7. 29 GARS , 1, p. 辛03; Weber, Protestant Ethic , p. 18 1. 30 WuG ， P.7自 ; EaS , p. 173. 31 WuG , p. 77; EaS , p. 138. 32 In a typical accentuation of the antinomical character of the capitalist system, viewed from the perspective of a liberalism ofhumanist比如I坟， Weber(WuG , p. 78; 品IS ， p. 113) writes: 寸he fact that the maximum of formal rationality in capital accounting is po始七le only where the workers are 指导出时 to domination 七yentre­ preneurs is a further specifìc elemεnt of substantive irrationality in the rnodern economic order.' 33 MWG , IIr 0, p. 269. 34 丁he famous quesnon posed by Herbert M在rcuse as to what extent Weber aimed at a justifìcation of capitalism through the identifìcation of capitalism with formal rationality is 也 fact grounded ∞ this antinomy, w主ich Weber himsεlf explicidy st主essed. See, for example, the debat纪 εa反t 出 the 15t出 hConf岳 er把 enc 臼e ofGe 盯rman Sociol拎 og 盼y 检i挝 di沁孜 E吟 9句 衍叫 r叫(非 e均 d .)， Ma 献 xWe， 彷 衍r仔 b 加r川 们 仰nd 岛 d S.'0缸阳 Cαω1 6 5 ， in Otto S彷mme pp. 15 辛-86. 35 GPS , p. 63. 36 GPS , p. 269. 37 Le tter to Roberto Michels, 4 August 1908 , Fondazione Luigi Ein喜udi， Turin, ξxtensively quoted in chapter 6, pp. 96时7. See also Weber's basic acceptance of the principle of domination of man over m革n， even within a legitimate democratic system, in 'Politics as a vocation', in GPS , p. 507. 38 C f. Wilfried 良心hrich，反 obert Míchels: Vom soziol，号isch-syndi阳listischen zum foschistischen Credo (Bεrlin， 1972), pp. 143吨 39 Rehbe咯 'Rationales Handel札也窍， 31 (1978) , p. 2 吮 comes to the somewhat over七ωring condusion t且在t one is dealing here with ‘ the theo巧。f a libera1ism 出at has lost all emphasis 部 wel1 as future orientation, constituting a sociological counterpart to the "su与εctivis旷， muddled political economy.' Tl由 certainly seems to go too f泣， since the strcngth of Wcbcr's position rests prcciscly on its principled openness towards novel typeS of social developme时， forwhic主 diff是rent poli时al strategies and models of action can be present

Notes to Chapter 4 CHAPTER J

2

3 4 乡

6 7

8

4

201

CAPITALISM AND SOCIALISM

A\bcrt Salomol1,‘ Max Wcbcr' , DieGesellschaji , 3 (1926) , p. 144, wrote: 寸hus， in thc fìnal analysis, it is 110t just mcthodological qucstions but "ideological" ones which separatcd Wcbcr from socialism and caused lùm to derive 出e di在lectics 在nd ultimate goal of socialist society from the Marxist philosop如y ofhistor予 0时 ca泣， 1n order to highlight the paradox of tlùs position, ca丑 hima 如口号苦。比 Marx.' Simìlarly, Ernst Topitsch,‘Max Wcbers Geschichtsa这的ssung'， Wissenschafi und Weltbild , 3 (1950), p. 262. GPS , p. 20. Letter t。我.oberto Michels, 6 Novem检r 1907, Fondazione Luigi Einaudi, Turin. In t且必吨时，附 the a凶ly部已'y Karl Löwith, Max Weber and Karl Ma 叽 ed. 丁om Bottomore and William Outhwaitc (London, 1982), pp. 19庄 MWG ， II 巧， p.6I6;M揣冒出er，‘Socialism'， in Eldridge, p. 205. Edu在rd Baumgarten, Max Weber: Werk und Person (Tii削1gen， 1964) , pp. 554寸， n. 1. For a detailed exposition of tlùs point of view, see Wolfgang J. Mommsen, The Age of Bureaucracy: Per.伊仰'es on the Political Sociology of Max Weber (New York, 1974), pp. 103-7 , and Mommsen, 'Universalgeschichtliches und politisches Denken bei Max Weber' , Historische Zeitschrifi , 201 (196S) , pp. 597ff., reprinted ín Mommsen, Max Weber: Gesellschaji, Politik und Gι~chichte (Fra吹furt， 1974), pp. 129-43. Note the meagre results of Günmer Roth's efforts to put together the textual docu呻 mentation fo'r Weber's attitude towards Marx in 'Das lùstorische Verhältnis der weberschen Sozíologie zum Marxismus二 KZSS ， 20 (1968), pp. 429-47; also p对nted in Reinhard Bendix and Günter Rot江 Scholarshíp and Partisansh争:位sa严 on Max Weber (Berkeley, 1971), pp. 227-46. In addition, see Anthony Giddens， αtpitalism

and Modern Social Tlteo守':AnAna伊is ofthe Writit程~ofMa同 Durkheim and Max Weber

9 10

11 12

(Cambridge, 1971), pp. 191ff.，在nd Giddens，将在眩，冒出er and the development of capitàlism', Sociology , 4 (1970), 捋 Pp. 辛§句 9-3ω Sε优ε Momms优er凡1， ‘℃飞 Un 挝lV ，咣er路sal革萨 es沉d革挝 l让ich双吐 t汪 liiche 岱s und poli挝 tisκd趾 1廷 εs De出 nken 旷'， Pp.9 仰?叩→143. For an ideal-typical interpretation of the economic view of lùstory as seen by Max 冒出er， cf. Judith J革仰ska-Bendl， Methodologische A气pekte des Idealtypus: Max Weber und die Soziologie der Geschíchte (Berlin, 1965), pp. 89-114. Max Weber，白e Methodology of the Social Sciences , trans. Edward A. Shils and He町 A. Fi nch (Glencoe, 111., 1949), p. 68 (translation modifìed slightly). Tlùs is according to Jürgen Kocka's interpretation,‘Karl Marx und Max Weber: ein methodologïsche

202

l\Totes to Chapter 4

13 C f. HelmutFleìscher, Marxismus und Geschiclzte (Franl巾rt， 1969), pp. 52-5. 14 Sec Erìch Matthias,‘Kautsky und der Kautskyanìsmus: Dic Funktìon der Ideologic in der deutschen Sozialdemokratie vor dem ersten Weltkrieg' , Marxismusstudien , 2 (1957) , p. 15 1, and recently, in cautio山 dcfcnce of 瓦在utsky， Hans寸。scph Stein七crg. Sozíalismus und deutsche Sozialdemokratie: zur Ideologie der Partei vor dem 1. Welt去rieg (Bonn/B ad Gode如g， 197斗， pp.60叩 L 15 See 嘉lso， in gre在纪r dept头， chapter 5, Joining 出ε 飞Jnderdogs?二 PP.75- 86 . 16 MWG , 1110, pp. 275-6. 17 GA.主义 p.45 6 .

18 Ma缸 a约 nla川 阳n n 挝 le Webe 叽 r飞， Ma阳 x 胁 w.'eb加e旷缸 r汇 以 .才 Bi悔 0嗯 g叩l机 trans. Ha 町 Zohn (New York, 1975), p. 604. 19 丁hus， ìn Weber's second essay on the Protestant ethicμ The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit ifCapitalism , trans. Talcott Parsons (New York, 195 号， p. 183), he insisted it 'had not been his intention 'to substirute for a onesided mater妇listic an e弓ually onesided spìritualistic causa1 ínterpretatio孜 of culrure and hìstory. Bo也 are equally possì七1e.' See also Max W，出er，宝ritische Bemcrkungen zu den vorstehenden "Krìtischen Beiträgen'" (article Ut阶r review by 豆arl Fischer), in 扣 J01且1邵 ιar 缸nn 飞Wi附往缸c扣k挝挝 .elm ε m始 狡 aa阻n 缸 削叫 n1 (ed.), Die p时t仰tische Eth沽 , vol. II (Güters10h, 1972), p. 捕 , and Weber, 'Beme阳吨en zu der vorstehenden "Replik'" (also hy Karl Fischer), in ibid., pp.46-7. Here Weber protests expressly at the assumption that he had ‘ undertaken an idealìstic construction of history' and states that he considers ‘ the question of the influence of economic processes upon religíous movemen衍， has 己y no means been reso1ved by hìs ‘current observations rcgardíng the way in w}就h influence has moved ín the opposite direction' , For a systematic discussion of t县公 problem，飞rhich 1 have largely ignored here, see Norman Bìmbaum, 'Conflicting interpretations of 命出εof capitalism: Marx and Weber', Britísh Journal 电{Socio­ i哩1 ， 4 (1953) , pp. 12 5-4 1. 20 C f. Weber, The Protestant Ethic • p. 181: ‘The Puritan wanted to work in a calling; we are forced to do 50. For when asceticism was carried out of monasnc cells into everyday life , and began to dominate worldly morality, ít played íts part in building the tremendous cosmos of the modem econonúc ordεr. Thi50rde主运 now 七ound to the technical and economic condinons of machìne production which today determine the lives of all 出e individua1s who are 七om into the mechanism, and not only those dirεctly concemed with e

Nωes to Chapter 4

丰03

23 L心with， Max Weber and Karl Marx , esp. pp. 50-1. 24 C( GPS , p. 64: ‘ the much reviled "anarchy of producrion'竹，主imilarly p. 333. Sce also ‘ Dcr Sozialismus二 MWG ，I1 巧， pp. 61 3叫 14; Eldridgc, p. 202需 25 Thc lccture on ‘Socialism' (sce Ilotc s) should only be used with caution 如 Weber's undcrstanding of Marx, sincc it Ís Ilot frec of tacrical political considerarions. In it, W cbcr sought to coulltcract thc unccrtaill atmosphcrc rcgarding Austri扣Hungar子 C(MWG ，I1 町， Pp.597- 8 .

26 Ibid咽， PP. 61 3→ 4; Eldrídge, pp. 202-3 越 丰7 Ibid., p. 619; Eldridgc , p. 207. 28 Cf.Mommsell, Max Weber ， 件等 126-7; English edn, pp. I l 7- 18. 29 Ibid., pp. 299叩 302; English edn, pp. 277-9. 3 0 儿1WG ，I1 巧， p. 609; Eldridge , p. 199. 31 ~号'VG ， p. 79; EaS , p. 139. 32 MWG ，I1 巧， p. 464; EaS , pp. 1401-2 (trallslarion modifìed slighdy). 33 MWG ，I1 巧， pp. 465-6; EaS , p. 1403. 34 MWG ，I1 巧， p. 621; Eldridgc , p. 209. 35 WuG , p. 533; EaS , p. 930 (translation modìfìed slighdy). 36 Forwhat f己llows军 see WuG , pp. 177-8; EaS , pp. 302寸， 37 WuG , p. 178; EaS , p. 304. 38 WuG , p. 179; EaS , p. 305. There Max Weber refers direc t1y to an unfìnished passage in the third volume of Capi时， and speculates that Marx became aware of 也is problem. in the fìnal years of his 主fe and therefore w在nted to extend 头1S analysis. 39 防'uG ， p. 179; EaS , p. 305. 40 MWG ，I1 巧， p. 61 5; Eldridge, p. 204. 41 In 1908 he pointed out to Roberto Michels that it was utopian to assume that it 黯ight be possible to overcome the ‘ dominatioll of man over man' by whatever sort of socialist system. See letter to Roberto Michels of 4 August 1908. Seεalso chapter 6 , pp. 96吁· 42 C( Gerhard Hufnagel , Kriti是 aLs Beruf der kritÍ5che Gehalt im Werk Max Webers (Frankfurt, Berlin and V讼nna ， 1971) , pp. 148-54. When Hufnagel at时已utes the fact th双双1eber refused to develop an alternative prescription for ending ‘ alienation' 'to the caution of the scientis t' and to ‘ the criric's tendency not to go beyond the negative acrivity of critical destrllction' (p. 152) , 1am unable to follow 1让m. Itis not ‘caurion二 nor is it mere crirical negarivity , but rather realisric insight ìnto the conditions of industrial socieries which made Weber come to the realization that there was no 气uick solution to the problems that Marx had raised. It led him to develop 在 range of strategies de主igned to make the best of a situation which was in and of itself irreversible. 43 ‘Only polirical democrarizarion ìs perhaps achiev必le in the foreseeable future , and it is not so insignifìcant. 1 cannot prevent you from be

20 4

Notes to Chapter 4

44 C f. Weber's contribution to the discussion at the 1905 convention of the Verein für Sozialpolitik held in Mannheim, reprinted in GASS , pp. 396-7; see also Mommsen, Max Weber , pp. 125-7; English edn, pp. 116-19. 45 Weber referred to the state as ‘ the seat of political power which dominates natiollal sociery\See ‘Die Lehrfreiheit der Universitäten' , in Münchner Hochschulnacllrichten , 19 (1909) , trans. Edward Shils in ‘ The power of the state and the digniry of the academic calling in imperial Germany: the writings of Max Weber on universiry problems' , Minen顷， II (1973) , pp. 18-2 3 (quotation on p. 20); see also EaS , pp. 975 , 9 83-90. 46 ‘ Industrialisierung und Kapitalismus in Werk Max Webers', Kultur und Gesellschafi (Frankfurt, 1965) , vol. 2, pp. 125ff.; English version in Otto Stammer (ed.) , Max We加 and Sociology Today (Oxford , 1971), pp. 133-5 I. C f. Mommsen, Max Weber: Gesellschafi, Politik und Geschichte , pp. 41ff. 47 In the light of this , it is astonishing that Wolfgang Lefevre has tried once again to seek the solution to the problems posed (in quite different ways) by Marx and Weber by completely doing away with state power. This is on a level of utopianism ω 山 ist川 0 exceeding that already reached by Marx. See Wolfgang Lefevre , Zum his Cωh 归 仰 a rakt，阳 und 剧 zur historischen Funktion der Methode bü伊r/icher S臼iûlogie: Untcrsuchu1lgen am Werk Webers (Frankfurt, 1971), pp. 86-97. 48 防'uG ， pp. 59-60; EaS , pp. 109-10. 49 WuG , p. 87; EaS, p. 15 1. 50 Here 1 draw on Wolfgang Schluchter's brilliant analysis of Herbert Marcuse's critique of Max Weber, in Aspekte bürokratischer Herrschafi: Studien zur Interpretation der fortschreitenden Indust句esellscha斤 (Munich， 1972), pp. 257-68. 51 C f. Schluchter's point (ibid叩.267) that ‘ at the height of the inferno which he has set ablaze Marcuse does not so much' unmask ‘ Weber as truly understand him for the 自rst time.' 52 WuG , p. 44; EaS , p. 84. See also WuG , p.78; EaS , P.138: ‘ The fact that the maximum of formal rationaliry in capital accounting is possible only where the workers are subjected to dominatioll by entrepreneurs is a further specific elemellt of substantive irrationaliry in the modern economic order.' 53 Letter to Roberto Michels of 4 August 1908; see also chapter 6, pp. 96-7. 54 WuG , p. 65; EaS , p. 118. 55 WuG , p. 60; EaS , p. II I. 56 GPS , p. 12. 57 C f. the reports 011 Max Weber's speech to the Deutscher National-Ausschuss 011 1 August 19 凶 ， MWG ，I1 巧， pp. 656-90. 58 For further details , see chapter 6, pp. 85-6. 59 C f. MWG , 1110, 1

Notes to Ch哼ter 5 CHAPTER

5

JOINING THE

205

UND 军 RDOGS(

1 Lcttcr to Ro七Crto Mìchels , 6 Novembcr 1907, Fondazione Luigi Einaudi , Turin; cf. Mommsen, Max Weber , p. II6 ，总 84; English edn, p. 109, n. 84. 2 S优 chapter 4,‘Capitalism and Socialìsm\ 3 GPS , p. 22. 4 lbid. 5 For a morc detailed account of the relationship bctwcc l1 Wcber and Mìchcls , scc chapter 6,‘Roberto Michels and M鼠冒出er\ 6 For the following analysis see Wolfgang J. Mommsen,‘Max Weber and Roberto Michcls: an asymmctrical p在rtncrship'， Archíves européennes de sociologie , 22 (1 树叶， pp. 100-凶. and Mommscn , 'Roberto Michcls and Max Weber' (chaptcr 玛. Scc also W. Röhrich, Robe川líchels: Vom sozíalistisch-.吁mdikalistischen zun呐schistischen Cred。 但erlin， 1972); D. Beetham,‘From socialism to fascism: the relarion between theo巧 and pr在crice in the work of Robert Michels', Politícal Studies , 25 (1977) , pp. 3-24, 161-81; and L. A Sca町，‘M在x Weber and Robert Michels' , American Journal oJ S仰切， 96 (1981 )，汗. 1269f( Scc 站嘟 oG 仙 ω 町 f凸1口 m 缸时 1 拭tritu a 毡lde臼s ofWebe佼r 喜n 时 .d Mi比chels ω s仰 OCl沁&必li总sr叽 风 n 1， 扫 1 n 民民.B 阮en 叫 di仅 x and G. 议I飞ot出 h， Scltolarship and PartisansJ中: Essays on Max Weber (B erkeley, 1971), pp. 247-52. 7 Letter to Michels, 8 October 1906, Fondazionc Luigi Einaudi, Turin; cf. Mommsen , Max Weber , p. 115; English e巾， p.108. 8 Letter to Michels, 12 May 吟吟， Fondazione Luigi Einaudi, Turin; cf. Mommsen, Max Weber , p. 118 , n. 91; English edn , p. 110. 9 'Zur Lage d的住宅erlichen Demokrarie in Russl础d二稍加，川， 'Beil帘'， pp.120ì; MWG , Iho, pp. 271-2. 10 Ibid., p. 256; here quoted from Weber, Se leclions in Translati棚， ed. W. G. Runciman (Cambridge UP, 1976), pp. 276-7. 11 C( above , n. 7. 12 See chapter 6. 13 For a more detailed account, see Mommsen, Max Weber , pp. 125-7; English edn, pp.118-20. 14 1七ìd.， and also B. Schäfers，古in 1主undschreiben Max Webers zur Sozialpo1irik' , Soziale 阶lt ， 18 (1967), pp. 二6 叫2. IS ‘ Das Preussische Wa挝recht'， in MWG , I1 巧， pp.222唰 35. 16 Ibid., pp. 720毗7. 17 C f. Mommsen, Max Weber , p. 274; English edn, p. 2$4. 18 'Das ncue Deutschlan矿， speech of 4 December 1918 in Frankfurt, in MWG , 111 6, pp. 20 7咿 13.

19 Ibid. , p. 312. 20 Ibid. See also Weber's notes for a polirical speech, early in 1919, which confirm the report in the FrankJurter Zeítut毡:‘Why ∞t be a sociaHst? In order not to s站在ld charlatanism, not [to join] in grave-d惚吨 ':Arbei怨telle und Arc恼 des Max Weber

Notes to Chapter 6

206

Ausgabe bci dcr Kommission für Sozial- und Wirrschaftsgcschichtc dcr Baycrischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Munich, Baumgartεn MS collection; reprinted in Momms扭• Max Weber. appendix VL 21 GPS.pp.458ff.;cf. Mom黯然泣• Max Weber. pp. 320-1. 325-6. 22 Lettεr to Karl Petersen. 14 April 1920, Petersen collection no. 53. in thc posscssion of Dr Edgar Petersen，挂在mburg; fìrst published，七ut with numerous misrcadin杏出← torting its meani吨，马'Bruce F. F可e， 'A letter from Max Weber'.Journal ofModern Histo亨， 39 (1967) , pp. 122叩4. For a corrccted text. sec Momm阳1. MaxWeber. p. 333 , n. 105. 23 As early as 1909 the idea of eventually joining the Social Democratic Party occurred to Weber as a theoretical possibi峙. because he thought that effective support for the interests of the proletariat would be possible only if he unreservedly idεnrifìed with the Social Democrats. At that time he wrote to Tönnies: 'But 1 could not hones t1 y subscribe ro the credo of Social Dεmocracy. 主nd th主t prevented me from joining - cven i fI did no俨然rve other gods" as well- 在lthoug如 it is 必er all eve巧 bit as 1τlUch lip-service as the Apos t1es' Creed.' C f. Mommsen, Max Weber. p. 137, n. 152; English edn, p. 128. See also GPS , p. 485. and Weber's analogous statement in the Wiesbadener Zeítu呀， evening edition of 6 December 1918 (c f. Mommsen, Max 却 Weber , p.3泸I凶6白; Englìsh ed 缸 n， p.2 均 闪4 9 叫蚓 4)， and fìn叫 all句 y the 阳 1e 盯(t，优阳 e盯r of 问 1 4 April 叩 1 92 o to Pet优町 e盯r附 nα1: ‘哇1 cannot become a ..叫jority socialist" [Mehrheitssozialist 1because this party must make the same compromises concerning socialism (again创出e convÍ ctionsof its scienrifìcally trained membe吟， (sec no优 22). Accordìng to 出is， he might otherwise have joined the part)ι

CHAPTER

6

法部部TO MICHELS AND MAX WEB翻

1 D. Bcetham, 'Miche1s 盏nd his critics', Archives européennes de sociologie ， μ(19 8 叶， pp.81-99. 2 The ideas developed here be在r close1 y on the argument of my earlier articlc,‘Max Weber and Roberto Miche1 s: an asymmetrical partnership飞 Archives eur，守的 nes de sociol咽ie ， 22 (1981). pp.100-16. See also W. Röhrich, Robert Mic /t els: Vom sozialistisch-syndi缸lis即hen zum 卢础 istischen Credo (B er1 in, 1972), and hisεoncise cssay on Robert Michc1 s in D. Käsler (cd.), Klass治erdes soz.必均ísc!ten Denket队 vol. 2 (Munich， 197号， pp. 226-S3;A. Mi tzman, Socio/，哩y and Estrange疗lent: Three Sociol，您能 oflmperialGermany (NewYork, 197在， pp. 267-344. For a trc时har阳n内ueof 出c interprεtations of 七oth Röhrich 在nd Mítzm革n， see 窍. Beetham, 'From socialism to fas部部: the r'e1 ation between theory and pracrice in the work of Robert Miche1s飞 Po /i tical Studies , 2S (1977), pp. 3-24, 161-81; see also F. P岳tsc益，‘Robert Michels als Elitentheorepker', Po /i tische Vierteijahressch币， 7 (1966), pp.208-27. and , on the relationship between Weber and Michels, W. J. Mommsen, Max Weber , pp. 115-19; English edn, pp. 107-12, and the article by L. A. Scaff,‘ Max Weber and Ro怡rt Michels\ AmericanJournal ofSociology , 86 (1981). pp. 1269 ff.

Notes ω Clzapter

6

207

3 Max Weber to Roberto Michels, 1 January 1906. Fondazione Luigi Einaudì, Turin. Thc articlc is R. Michcls，白 ic dcutschc Sozialdcmokratic二乓β驼， 23 (1906), pp.47 1 即 55 6 .

4 R Michels. 'Prolctariat und Bourgcoisic in der sOzÌ alistischen Bεwe在圳在 ltalicn二 秘SP ， 21 (190 5). pp. 347-4 玲，叫 22 (190件. pp. 80-1 川24-66， 664-7 20 . 5 R. Michel窑，将ax Wcbcr二 Nuo扩a Ant%gia. 的 Dcccmbcr 1920, p. 7. 6 Mom黯然n，将在x Weber and Roberto Michels二 pp. 1 ∞由1. 7 Röhrich, Robert Miche/s , p. 14. 8 MaxWebcr. ‘ Die sogenannte "Lehrfreiheit" an den deutschen Universitäten' , Franι 卢rter Ze ítung , 20 Scptcmbcr 1908 , 3rd morning cdn. C[ Mommsc l1, Max 附加， pp. 1I 9叩20; English edn. pp. 112-13. 9 Max Weber to Roberto Michels, 21 Octobcr 1915 , copy in Max Wcbcr 严严以 Central Archive of 出e German Democraric 丑epublic Meiscburg. Rep. 52. Scc also Mommsen,‘Max Weber and Roberto Michels二 p.102. 10 Max Weber to Roberto Michels, 19 Augu汉 1909， Fondazione Luigì Einaudi , Turin. II 挝ichels， 'Die deutsζhc SozÌ aldcmokra ric' , p. 555. 12 Max Weber to Roberto Michels. 8 Octobcr 1906, Fondazionc Luigi Einaudi , Turin; see Mom黯然n， Max Weber , p. 115; English cdn, p. 108. 13 See Max W加，也rL咿 der bürgerlichen Demokra时 in Russland', AfSSP , 22 (1 仰的， pp. 120-1; MWG , IlI o, p. 叼 27 2 . I问 4 民R. Michel 叫 els， ‘巾 Di代cd 命el附 he 如 SoZla 臼al峙 命emok d 如rari 时 lC川1m 111 川附 ten 25 (19 07), pp. 148-2 31. 15 Ibid., p. 179. 16 Ibid., pp. 219叩20. 17 GASS , p. 410蟹 18 Max 冒出ertoRo快rto Michels, 6 November 1907, Fondazione Luigi Einaudi , Turin. 挝ichels was in factlater 如命scribe the party in similar terms. See his Zur Soziologie des

Parteiwesens in der modernen Demokratie: Untersuchungen über die o/igarchischen Tendenzen des Gruppenlebens 如ip吨， 1911), p. 293 , n. 2. An English translarion of 邮 work 币。m the Italian) was published under the ride Po /i tical Parties:A SociologícalStudyofthe Oligarclzícal Tendencies oJModern Democracy (London, 1915). 19 Max Weber to Roberto Michels, 19 August 1908 , Fondazione Luigi Einaudi , Turin; see Mommsen, Max Weber , p. 115 ，弘 80; English edn, p. 108. 20 R. Michels, ‘Die oligarchischen Tendenzen der Gesellsc如丘: Ein Beitrag zum Problem der Demok附le飞机SP ， 27{19。碍，房.73- 1 35. 21 Ibid., pp. 77-8 , 118f[ 22 Max Weber to Roberto Miche纭， 4 August 190 章 ， Fondazione Luigi Einaudí, Turin; sεεMommsen， Max Weber ， 怦. 11 1-12; Englísh e缸， pp. 104寸23 剖ichels， Z肌Sozíologie (see note 18 above). 24 The 2nd edn was published by Kr心ner in Leipzig in 192$. A reprintwas published in St时

Notes to Chapter 6

208

26 27 28 29

edn (p. 340) , anarchy is said not to have ‘succeeded in rcalizing its the。可 m any practically applicable form飞 Ibid. (1St edn) , pp. 387ff. Ibid. , p. 391; see also 2nd edn, p. 377. Ibid. See the undated lettcr from Wcbcr, written somc time in 1911 , in which hc thanks Michels for the dedication and lists a whole series of points of criticism, Fondazione Luigi Einaudi , Turin. It is worth noting that the same letter is explicidy mentioned in Michels's Preface to the second edition: ‘ For the first timc the opportunity now presents itself to give this detailed letter, containing a critique which is both positive and negative, the attention it descrves'; ibid., p. xxviii.

30 MWG ，I1 巧， p.4 8 3.

31 C f. Mommsen, Max Weber , pp. 363-70; English e缸， pp. 339-46, and W. J. Momm优凡 The Age ofBureauc叫':

Perspectives on thc Political Sociology ofMa."( Weber

(Oxford , 1974), pp. 89-94. 32 See note 19 above. 33 This formulation does not, however, appear unril the 2nd edn of Michels, Zur Soziologie (p. 130). 34 WuG , pp. 53!-40. In Weber's ‘ Parlament und Regjerung im neugeordneten Deutschland' (MWG , 11 巧， especially pp.454-64) of 1917, his position on the sociology of parties、 appears in fully developed form; it stands in direct contrast to the hypotheses developed by Michels , despite thc fact that the contents of their analyses are , to a large extent, the same. 1t was not until 191 9-20 that Weber set his study of political parries within the framework of a ‘ typology of forms of domination' (WuG , pp. 167ff.). 35 GPS , p. 53 2 . 36 See WuG , pp. 155-7, and the comments in Mommsen, Max Weber , pp.427-9; English edn, pp. 401-4; also Mommsen, The Age ofBureaucracy , pp. 90-4. 37 See R凸hrich， Robert Michels , pp. 143 伍， and Beetham,‘From socialism to fascism' , pp.175-7. 38 WuG , p. 156. 39 See Mommsen, Max Weber , pp. 407-15; English edn, pp. 381-9. 40 R. Michels ,‘Grundsätzliches zum Problem der Demokratie', Zeitschriflfür Politik , 17 (1927) , pp. 29 1- 2. 41 Michels , 'Auth。由y'， in E叼dopaedia ofthe Social Sciences , vo1. 2 (New York, 1939), p. 319 , quoted from Röhrich, Robert Michels , p. 164. 42 Ibid., p. 160. 43 Michels,‘Grundsätzliches zum Problem der Demokrarie', p. 295. 44 R. Michels,‘Der Homo Oeconomicus und die Kooperation'，乓β'SP ， 29 (1909) , pp. 59- 8 3 归uotation from p. 79). 45 Ibid. , p. 66. 46 Ibid. , p. 68. 47 Ibid., p. 65.

Notes to Chapters 7 and 8

209

48 陆在x Weber to Roberto Michels, 19 August 1909, Fondazione Luigi Einaudi , Turin. 49 且 Michels， 'Aug出t Bebel二 AßSPd7(1 伊拉， pp. 67 1-700. 50 Se e R剖lrich，泉。bert Michels , pp. 55 旺，

5I Michels, 'August Bebel', p. 697. CHAP四川

1M革x Weber,

MAXW旦 BER

ON

BUR汹JCRACY

AND

BU黯AUCRATIZATION

The Protestant Ethiε and the Spírit of Capitalísm , 2nd edn (Lo ndön, 1976),

p. 18 I. 2 W. G. Rt阳iman， A Critique 吃f Max Weber 's Philosophy 电f Soâal Science (Cambridge, 197 2), p. 5. 3 W. J. Mommsen, The Age of Bureauc附y: Pe叩ectíves on the Po /i tical Sociology 吃fMax Weber (Oxfo时， 197功， pp.20-1. 4 WuG , p. 128; EaS , p. 22 J. 5 WuG , p. 561 ; EaS , p. 973. 6λ必VG ，I1 巧， p.46 4.

7 M即G ， I/ 巧， p.4 6 5.

CHAPTER

8

IDEAL TYPE AND PURE TYPE

1 A representative example is Theodor Schiede玄，‘Der Typus der Geschichts'wisser因haft'， Staat und Gesellschaft im Wandel unserer Zeit (Munich, 195 号， PP.176丘 2 H. Stuart Hughes，寸he historian and t汪古 social scientist飞 American Histo t'ical R.evietv , 66 (1961), pp. 20ff. 3 ]ürgen Streisa时， Studien über die deutsche G巳schichtswissenschaft ， vol. 11: Die bürgerliche

deutsche Gιschichts.叫re伽 ng von 彻 dee旷r 虱e攸 i比ck 加sein 仿 吨 n苦 6 5边 Fa俗schi.必sm.ωts 币e 仅 erli凡 19句 叫)， pp. 179ff. 4 WL , p. 204. 5 See chapter 2. 6 On thiss在eWolfgal时. Mommsen, '''Towards the iron cage of future ser臼orr川 On the methodologïcal status of Max Weber's ideal-typical cöncept of 也ureaucratiza­ tion', Trat阳tio邸 of the R.oyal Historical Socie芋， 5th seri饵， 30 (Londö钱， 1980), pp. 13 1ff. 7 WL , p. 202. 8 Bernhard P在ster， Die Entwicklung zum ldealtyptts: Ei时 methodologische Untersuchung 品er

von Theorie und Geschichte bei Met哲代 &hmoller und Max Weber (丁协Íngen， 1928); ]udith ]anoska-Bendl, Methodolog缸he Aspekte des Ideal.守pus: Max Weber und die Soziol气gie der Geschichte 扭erlin，吟65). 9 See Mommsen, Max Weber: Gesellschaft, Po /i tik und Geschíchte , pp. 224-5. das

V.εrhil阳 is

10

U伍， p. 20 4.

II

See 可Volfgang

J.

Mom邸帆‘Per州che Lebensfii也rung und gesellschaftlicher Wandel: Versuch einer Rekonstruktion des Begriff与 der G的chichte bei Max

210

12

13 14 15 16

Notes to Chapter 9

Weber', in P. Al ter, T. Nipperdey and 百. J. Mommsen (eds), Geschichte und politísc!les Handeln: Studíen zu Eu 叩äíschen Denkern der Neuzeit (Stuttga风 19 8 S) , pp. 261-81. An English version，‘民rsonal conduct and societal change', appcared in Sam Whimstεr and Scott Lash (eds) , Max Weber: Rationali守 andModemí守 (London， 19 87) , pp. 35-S 1. WL , pp. 427-74. WuG , pp. l-II9; EaS , pp. 3-21 1. See WL , pp. 437在 Ibid., p. 438 , n. 1. See ‘Einleitung in die Wirtschaftsethik der Weltrelìgionen', GARS ， 问.265. At the beginning of the ‘Zwischenbetr在chtung'，如d.， p. 537, Weber expl在ins his rese在rch strategy even more clearly: to isolate 吐urch zweckmässig rarional konsnuierte Typen die innerlich "konsequelltesten" Formen eines aus fest gegebenen Vorausse也ungen ableitbaren prakrischen Verhaltcns'. In 也1S context he points out (ibid., p. 544) that ìt is n刷刷ry to disrir丐uish between formal and 如bstanrive rarionality, and to note that th句 can come into conf1ict with each other. See a]so, on t怡 inevitable conflict between formal rarionality and substanrive rarionality in modern capitalism, WuG , pp. 44ff., esp. pp. 78f(; EaS , pp. 部在， esp. pp. 138-9.0n this subject see also Roger Brubaker, The Lim始吃fRatíonality: An Essay on the Social and Moral Tlzouglzt ofMax Weber (London, 1984), pp. 35ff.

w 防尘， p.43 8 .

18 WuG , pp. 3-4; EaS '. pp. 3申4. 19 For a good example, see ‘ Parlament und Regierung im neugeordneten Deutschland' , in MWG , 11 巧， p.48 7: ‘'Es ist. 德. nicht Sache des Bεamten， nach seinen eigenen Überzeugungen mitk益mpfend in den polìrischen Streit zu treten und, in diesem Sinn, "Polirik zu treiben" , die immer Kampf ist.. . . Poliriker müssen der Beamtenherrschaft das Gegengewicht gebεn.' 20 WuG , p. 61; EaS , pp. 112-13. 21 See WuG , pp. 59在 EaS ， pp. 109ff. 22 See chapter 2 for a more detailed elaborarion of 在is point. 23 防尘， p.206. CI主APTER

9

RATIONAL1ZATION AND MYTH IN WEBER'S 黯OUGHT

1 WL , p. 5S2. 2 Günter 古以，‘Religion， Geschichte und sozialer Wandel in Max Weber's Relígionssoziologie' , in C‘ Seyfar出 and W. M. Spro时el(ed斗， Seminar:如地ion undgesellschaft伽

liclze

Entwic.去lung.

Studien zur

Prolestantismus-Kapitalismus例 These

Max Webers

(Frankfurt , 1973), p. 328. 3 WL , p. 154. 4 Letter to Dr Gross of 13 Se ptember 1907, in private collecrion; rcprodu<.:ed in part in E. Baumgarten, Max Weber: Werk und Person (Tübingen, 1964), p. 647. 5 According to a manuscript bequeathcd to Georg Ka必er rcproduccd in ibid., p. 646.

Notes to Chapter 9

211

6 C f. espccially WuG , pp. 247-9; EaS , pp. 402-4. 7 WuG , p. 247; EaS , p. 402. 8 WL , p.613. 9 Ibid. , pp. 604-5. 10 GARS , 1, p. 94. F. Tenbruck was fìrst to point out that in the new edition of the cssays on thc Protcstant ethic this passagc had bccn addcd by Webcr and thus must be attributed to the last phase ofhis work. 11 Letter to Adolf von Harnack of 2 May 1906 , Max Weber papcrs , Ccntral Archives of the German Democratic Republic , Mcrscburg; quotcd in Mommscn, Max Weber , p. 100; English edn, p. 94. 12 C f. the account of this in Lebensbíld , pp. 469-70. 13 C f. the letter from Max Wcbcr to P. von Klenau of 26 November 1910, quoted in ibid., p. 467. 14 C( W. J. Mommsen,‘Max Weber and Roberto Michels: :m assymetrical partnership' , Archíves européennes de socíol哩íe ， 22 (198 1), pp. 110- 16, with futher references. 15 Letter to Roberto Michels of 12 May 吟吟， Michels Papers , Fondatione Luigi Einaudi , Turin. 16 MWG , II 巧， pp. 462 , 660. See also Mommse n, Max Weber , pp. 257-8; English edn , p.23 8. 17 C f. among others E吨en Diederichs, Po /i tík des Geístes Gena, 1920). 18 For \1/ eber's role at the Lauenstein conferences , see MWG , II 巧， pp.7 01 - 8 . 19 For the dating of and the background to the writing of the address ‘ Science as a vocation' , see Mommsen, Max Weber , p. 289, n. 292; English ed n, pp. 268-9 , and the defìnitive account in Wol悔 t也 伊a剖 E 俨鸣 n19 Schlu 町 1比chte吭 r巳， Raωωω 仰 tííω ionω alí肌 sm山 由 deer Weltb衍ehe 加 阳 M er阳 r扫J Stu叫 díen 阳 b 怡 enz 却uMa 邸 x Weber (Frankfurt, 1980), pp. 236-40. 20 WL , p. 598. 21 Erich von Kahler, Der Be旷der Wíssenschafi 但erlin， 1920). 22 WL , p. 594. 23 Cf. the complete text of this passage , WL , p. 564: ‘lt is like in the old world , still not disenchanted of its gods and demons, only in another sense. As Hellenic man at times sacrifìced to Aphrodite and at other times to Apollo , and above all as everybody sacrifìced to the gods ofhis city, so do we to this day, only such behaviour is disenchanted and denuded of its mythical but inwardly genuine plasticity. Fate , but certainly not "science", holds sway over these gods and their struggles.' 24 WL p. 565. 25 For the recent debate about Weber's views on universal history, see chapter 10. 26 See W olfgang J. Mommsen,‘Neue Max-Weber-Li优ratur'， Historische Zeítsch币， 2 I l (1969) , pp. 616-30, and Max Weber: Gesellschafi, Po /itík und Geschíchte 伊 ( Frankfu口 1974 叫)， pp. 259-60, n. 109. lt is to the credit of Friedrich Tenbruck that the signifìcance of this issue has at la

212

Notes to Chapter 10

二8

WuG , p. 726; EaS , p. 1209. 29 WuG , p. 142; EaS , p. 245. 30 GARS , 1, p. 564. 31 Cf. 乞，wischenbetrachtu时， GARS ， L PP雹 570ff. 32 即7..， p. 547. CHAPτER 10

THE τWO DIMENSIONS OF SOCIAL CHANGE IN MAX WEBER'S SOCIOLOGICAL THEORY

1 See Wolfgang J. Mommse认 The Age ofBureaucracy: Pe，叩ectives on the PoUtical Sociol咽' ofMax Weber (Ox岛时， 1974), pp. 归 5 2寸3. 2 Cf王:Wolf胁 驴a创 B 伊吨 n19 副J. Momms阳 s创 矶 m en 凡 nl， Ma阳 川~始εg x 缸 r汇':Ku 础 It叽 Gωe衍'se!L 仰ι1sc schafiω 览 ω umd 1974), pp. 仰 99叩 10 3. 3 Cαf. Wolf单 古 E gaA必 衍吨 n 始19μSchl 灿恤 lu 叫 1 U附 0仰nM 始 4知a..;: Wi巾rs G 倪创IIω schaÆ 忆 功f弩 ì!les 驴幻 α 'schi，ω 'cht印e (σT站i吨 哈 η gε凡 19 叨 75讨)， p. 咐 1 5捋s怠. 如 Se 恍e also W olfgang sc趾uchter，‘Max Webers Gesellschaftsgeschichte'，阳王军. 31 (1979) , pp.3 18- 27; Günther Roth and Wolfgang S出luchter， Max ~恰如兰的'sion OJ Hisco亨': Eth i.α and Methods (Berkeley , 叩 1 979 约咏); 飞w 万01毡华an 吨 μSchl1.以 g 1 Studi邵 协 b f诠 εenz 宫 zuMa. 阳 x~ε必如 beer (阶 Fra 古rat咚王武 kfì 缸口町rt飞， 198彻O 咛叫 ).

4 GARS , 1, p.

巧 2; seεalso Schluchte言，

Die Entwicklung des 。如identalen Ratiotlalísmus ,

pp.39-40. 5 Cf. ibid., pp. 12-13. . 6 Fri付出革 Tenbruck， 'Das Werk Max Webers'， ι~S ， 27 (1975) , pp.663ff.; 在出ruck，‘Wieg出 kennen wir Max Weber?飞 Zeitscl呼für díe gesam叫taaì.swísset← schafi , 191 (1975), pp. 719ff. 7 丁enbruck，古部 Werk Max Webers飞 p. 68 9. 8 Wilhelm Hennis,‘Max Webers F吨estellu吨二 Zeítsch币卢r Po/it.哉， 29 (1982), pp. 241ff.; Hennis，将axWebers T主ema二 Zeitschrifi卢r Politi:去， 31 (1984), pp. II-5 2. See also Wilhelm Hennis, Max 陆的 FragestelIung: Studien zur Bíograpllíe des Werks (Tübingen, 1987). 9 In the pro。在 of the last version of The Protestant Ethíc and the Spírít OJ Capítalism 吟ich was to be published as part of the Collected 丘ssays on the Socío/.钮lofRel结íon Weber inserted the word ‘ modern' before 'Capitalism'，如t Str uck it out again pr sumably so as not to bc charged with havin在 made major revisions of his thesis und白白e pressure of contξmporary criticism. 10 C f. Max Weber, Díe Protestantísc加 Eth沽， vol. II: Krítiken und Antikriti胁， εd. Johannes Wi时elmann (Hambu咯 1972)， in particul毒r pp. 27寸 1 and 303由5. 11 GARS , 11, p. 13 1. 12 See GARS , 1, p. 252，在nd 也ε 创r1ier version in whïch the passage just qu~ted is still lacking , in 乓卢'SP ， 41 (1916) , p. 15. 13 WuG , p. 15; EaS , p. 30. 14 WuG , p. 658; EaS , p. 1Il 7. 15 GARS , 1.

•

j飞-lotes

to Chapter 10

21 3

[6 C f. Eva Ka rádi ,‘ErI1 st ßloch and Gωrg Lukács in Max Weber's Heidεlberg'， in 1唰 扑 n 帘。lfgang J. Mommsen and Jii吨 en Osterhammel (e钩 , Ma， 硝 x We彷ber and h出 is Co衍硝协 t衍 en

Iη7

GARS , II , p. 36 5. [8 Scc G. Abr在栩 衍 E珩 m ow 附叫 s挝 kci， De. 臼'sGe. 衍'sd 彷 hid 站 彷"山 ζd f必5必必ω b扣血初ildMa阳 川Weber. x ri 邸 {扫 仰n u 剖Îv< 附附 'ersale础ati彷'onali.必附 ier阳 un 咆 Ig~铲伊'P阳E Sn川g 伊a叫 1966 玛). 19 C[ T ellbruck, 'Das 飞Ñ'crk Max Wcbcrs二 p. 670; sec also ibíd., p. 687.

20 2[ 22 23

C f. Schluchter, Die Entwicklung des 0缸idrnfairrtRdtiondlbmm ， p zza Sec WL , pp. 29[f[ See Mommsell, Max Weber: Ges!εllschaft， Politik und Geschichte , p. 2 [2. See Günther Roth, 'Politische Herrschaft Ulld persönliche Freihei t', Heídelbe r;ger Max

24 25 26 27 28 29

cf. ιÆ且<S ， !I.电 p.3 6 5.

F阶争价亏§衍加如衍仔协 r-V

GARS , 1, pp. 1-2. Die EntwÎcklung des 0走'zidentalen Rationalismus , pp. 1公 13. See GARS , 1, p. 2. C( Schlucht时，

Ibid.

Cf. Wolfgang

Schlud阳，‘Max Webers Religionssoziologie',

.KZSS , 36 (1984) ,

P.3 61 . 30 C f. GARS , 1, p. 259. 31 GARS , 1, p. 12. 32 GARS , 1, p. 62. 33 GARS , 1, p. 62. 34 GA反S ， 1, p. 35 , n. 1. Weber had beell encour在ged to add this 吨。inder by the critique ofLujo ßrentano. 35 C f. RS , p. 26 1. It is doub巾1 whe出er this heading 手ike others which had been inserted into the manuscript on separat!εsheets before pu七lication) dates from 19 1I叩 门.It had probably been ins佼佼d only in 1919 whell the manusεript was sent to the pnnters. 36 Ibid. , p. ]46. 37 lbid. , pp. 346血 7; 弓uoted from EaS , p. 89538 WuG , p. 59; EaS , p. 108 (translation amended by the au也or). 39 WuG , p. 129; Ea S , p. 225. 40 C[ WuG , p. 129; EaS , p. 225.

CHAPTER 1 1

MAX WEBER IN MODERN SOCIAL

τHOUGHT

1 Raymond Aron, La Sociol号ie allen刷de ω附mporaine (Paris , 1935); quoted from thc German edition Die deutsche Soziologie der G结enwart (Stuttga风 1953)， p. 92‘ 始 e 盹 accωou 盹泣挝t of 严 P1口1必站 』剖讪 lica 臼 衍圳 a ti 阳 z τ he Gεr叶 d Schmid 由t， Max 防'ebeη Bibliographie:

Eine Dokumentation der Sekundärliteratur

(Stuttgart, 1977), was of invaluable help in preparing this study.

Notes to Chapter 11

21 4

3 陆 H erea去缸如 衍rr陀ef岳如-古f陀 t ren 创 础阳 n1 队1ωcs， Wer，去e ， vo l. 9 (Darmsta缸， 1974). L 4 See, ín particular, M. 1王aíllcr Lepsius,‘Dìc Soziologíc dcr Z飞Nischcnkricgszcí t: Entwick1 ungstendenzen ulld Beurteilungskriterien', ìn Sozi%gie in Deutsch/and und Österreich (Oplade风 1981)， pp. 6ff., and the essays and studies col1ected ìn this volume; 巳Klingemann， 'Vergangenheitsbewältigung oder Geschichtsschreibung? Unerwünschte Traditionsbestände deutscher Soziologie zwÎschen 1933 und 1945' , in S. Papkc (ed.) , Ordnung und Theorie: BeÎtr，告ez阳 Gesclωte der Soziologíe ín Deutsch妥妥》. 's. land (Darmstad t, 叩 1 98 叶6); Di让f法 kK 也益公划 s过le几 Di优rφ 升户 品衍 d 11t纪ede 叫ε拟 盹缸缸che u 时 eSo阳ZIO 阳印旷.、 0/哩i必'e 彷i 符 i治hren Er衍 1St时附[gs 俨俨 仰 m1扫 l仰i/ 刊 iU阳 E阳 (Opl 磊deε n 认， 19 句 84 叫叫). 叫 4 5 Sεe În particular OttheÎm Rammstedt, Deutsche Soziologíe 1933-1945: Die Normalität einer A叩assu 咆府在应furt， 1986). However, Rammstedt's study does not pay 黯ι fìcient attention to the fact that numerous scholars from other fìel出 decided to call themselves sociologists although this was often hardly justifìed w检n their actual work is taken into accoun t. 6 Aron， μ Sociologíe allemat价 C01附mporai肘， 2nd edn (paris, 1950); German edition Died.例cileSozω/ogie derG号enwart: Eine EiψIzrut智 (Stuttgart， 1953). 7 C f. Helmut Fog飞‘Max Weber und die deutsche Soziologie der Weímarer Repub Jik: Aussenseíter oder Gründervater?飞 in Lepsius (ed.), Sociologie ínDω tschlatld und 0附r­ reich , pp. 248ff. 8 Lepsius,‘Die Soziologie der Zwischenkriegszεit二 p.10. 9 Hcre rcferencεis made to the 2nd edn (Munich, 1958), p. 88. 10 C f. Dirk Käsler, Sozi%gísche Abenteuer: Earle Edward Eubank besucht europäischeSozíom .翩翩 幽 .幽

.

logen im Sommer 193手 (Oplade风 19 8 5)， pωim. 11 Melch 且lÎ阶 仪r 叫 O Paal片 yi川(ed 均.)， Hat咛吃 伊 ψ 严tp呻le附 d P 命 'er So仰忿纣 zio 切0/'地怨岔批:E 岛剧 r叫ir附 2V 川叫 ols (阳 Mur出 削 k 1注 i比ch 刘挝1 and Leipzi咯§各， 均 19 萨 23井). 1n a rcvicw of vol. 儿2' ‘白 De 盯r Ma 础 xω飞审 Uεd 七抉加 盯r-Kreis ε 沁S 阳 1n Hεeid 击ε州elbe盯rg ￥':， 始i 仪 K 却ðl，却ne仰iε附ij 仰 础 k alml呼Eφ 卢rS， 街0侃 ω刻抑 zi0ω1哩i衍e ， 5 (1926), pp. 270叩 1 ， Paul Honigsheim argued that there was a ‘ Max Weber circle', not a 'schoo l', and explained the absence of the lattcr in terms ofWcber's radical individualism, or ra白白气怡、 mcta­ physics of human heroism'; 磊M革x Weber hat einer jξden 1nstitution, Staat, Kirche, Partei, Trust, Schulzusammcnhang, d.h. jedem ü七erindividuellen Ge七ilde， den Ka mpf bis aufs Messεra吨esagt.' (‘Max Weber declared he wou

Notes to Chapter 11 17 18

19 20

21

22

21 S

büclzerJür Wissenscl吵 undjugendbi/dt吨， 7 (193 1), pp. 507- 16. On Carl Schmitt's relationship to Max Weber , see Mommscn, Max Weber , pp. 40715 , 478-81; English edn, pp. 382-9, 448-50. C f. also M. Rainer Lepsius's observation: ‘ Das von Weber verfolgtc Programm einer Soziologie auf dem Boden eines methodologischen Individualismus und einer vergleichenden Analyse von Sozialstruktur und Kultursystem hat die Entwicklung in den zwanziger Jahren nicht prägen können'; ‘ Die Soziologie der Zwischenkriegszeit' , p. lO. (‘ The plan Weber pursued for sociology based on methodological individualism and a comparative analysis of social structure and cultural systems had no significant impact on developments in thc twenties.') Eduard Baumgarten, Max Weber: Werk und Person (Tübir驴 n， 1964) , p. 554. It is significant that Nietzsche's influence on Weber had been a neglected theme for a long time. However, Wilhelm Hennis in his recently published book Max Webers F咆este/lu 咆 (Tübingcn， 1987) considerably overstates Nietzsche's influencc on Webe r. C f. Roland Eckert, 'Die Kulturtheorie Al fred Webers - Überlegungen zur Wissenssoziologie des Bildungsbürgertums', in Eberhard Demm (ed.) , A /fred Weber als Po /i tiker und Ge/eh阳仰iesbaden， 1986), pp. 69 ff. Cf. the informativeτeatment by Beate Riesterer，‘M丘ed Weber's position in German intellectual histl。可" in Demm (ed.) , A /fred Weber als Po /i tiker und Gelehrter , pp.82ff.:

巧3 Ha Z 如ansF 阮re)吼 Soz 刀刻ωiO/咆咽ieals 阳 'zio W，i怡耐 削-kl ω r放 ωω 削 /iω协 chk ic ω 趾削削 eim ω 圳 u 4

So倪 'ziωiol，悔气哩gi化[怡e (Leipzig, 1930), p. 158. 24 Ibid., p. 258. 25 Cf. lring Fetcher,‘Von der Soziologie als Kulturwissenschaft zum Angebot an den Faschismus', in Karl Corino (ed.) , Intellektuelle im Bann des Nationalsozialismus (Hamburg, 1980), pp. 185ff. 26 See note 3. 27 Christoph Steding, Po /i tik und Wissenschafi bei Max Weber (Breslau , 1932). 28 C. Hans Linde,‘Soziologie in Leipzig 1925-1945', in Le psius (ed.) , 8，臼切l哩ie in Deutsch/and und Österreich . 29 Cf. Jerry Z. Muller,‘Enttäuschung und Zweideutigkeit Zur Geschichte rechter Sozialwissenschaftler im 盯 m ‘"咱听咄‘臼衍侃 阮凶 D ritt pp.2 均 92fl 仕 f; 与 see 纣 aIsωo Car岱st优en Kling 驴emann 凡 1，‘Heim 盯 mat岱∞ so 但ziω010 鸣 gie ode 盯r Ordnung 驴s­

instrument? Fach 与 1屯 ges沉 schich忧吐 tliche Aspekte der Soziologie in Deutschland zwischen 1933 und 1945', in Le psius (ed.) , So.

Notes to Chapter 11

216

Slg主飞 it was not the matεrI在1 and techniεal requirements of economic activity which

resulted in the emergencεof the new system of 喜n entrepreneurial economy. Rather its dev e10pment w:革刽s de盯tc盯rml 仇iεws.' It goe γ 创swi让d且10t议lt sa句 yl妇 ng that 由 t hi岱S 沁1 $辛 mη1a衍ss必lV 时c distortion ofWebc盯r's own 吭 vlCW 呐$丸, wl趾 1让ich cωO 挝i运 de盯re叫 d the nεwe创cOJ技lO mic et白 hi 口i比C 始 tO 七扮e just one among several others, including matεrial factors. 3η3 坠 H革技邵s 阮 F f妃E咛 町 ye盹 r巳， ‘G古咯 gε 岱 nwartsaωu 叶t盼 驴ab E 怡en dε哎主 dcu 川 tωschcn

俨 g eωS仰 at仰 St.栩 aaL削仰只剧川肌 v冽1I 咄 川阳 阳 Is.5必sen阳 schaft巧， ， 95纣{ 叨 5外)， p. 138. 34 Cf. Hans Freyεr，‘Ferdinand T，总nmεs und seine Stcllung in dcr dcutschen Sozio幽 logie' , Weltwirtschaftliclzes Archil八 44， II (193 6), pp. 347-的35 Cf. the interesting 在ccount of Weber's influence on French thought by Michael Pollak, 'Max Weber en France: l'iti时raire d'uneαuvrlε" Cahiers de I1tlStitut du Temps Pré:注ent (manuscriptJuly (986). Sce al草。 his essay ‘Max 留在ber in Frankreich'， κZSS ， 38 (1986) , pp. 670 - 84. 36 民日. Tawney, Rel告ion and the Rise 吃fProtestantism (London, 1926). 37 Maurice Halbwachs, ‘Les Origines puritaines du capitalisme mode rQ e' , Revue d先打扮ire et de philosoph位 rel告ieuses ， 5 (1925), pp. 13 2叩 54. 38 HenriS俭， Les Origines du capitalisme moderne (paris, 1926). C f. Pollak,‘Max Weberen France', p. 683. 39 Cf. David Ketder, Volker Mcja and Nico Stehr, introduction to Karl Mannheim , Konservativismus: Ein Beitrag zur Soziologie des Wissens (Fra放在的， 1984) , p. 39, n. 16. 40 SeεEva Karadi，它在r Sonnragskrcis und die Weimarer Ku1t旷， in H. Gass财主 (ed.)， 陆'ecl: W 仰lw 拟灿 圳仰 w i打r决 汹 阳u h 阳 阳 嗯 n 呗 g仰肌: Un ψ 俨 (ga rariscl

pp. 526 -34. 41 C f. the rather hostile 加 t substantially correct an在lysis by Georg Lukács in his Ze r-

störung der Vernu币， pp. 553 丘 42 Letter to Oskar Jászi , 25 Apri11933. C f. Kettler et al吟 Karl Mannheim, Konservativísmus , p. 37. 43 丑ere refcrence is made to the sccond edition 轧ondon， 194玛44 Ibid., pp. 58ff. 45 Cf. also Martin Albrow，白ie Reze抖。n Max Webers in der britischen Soziologie' , to ρ of 归 ft th 加 leD 阮'eu以阳￡ be publisl叫 in the 1>:附eedings ofa Co 收rε附 价 沁a搅/i仇 K n吵 1 9句， ed.Johannes Weiss (forthcoming). Quoted hcrc from thc manuscript with the kind permission of 住在 author. 46 C f. Günther Roth und Reinhard Bcndix,‘Max Wcbcrs Einfluss auf dic amcrika喃 nische Soziologic'，瓦部， II (1959) , p. 4μ1. 打 4 7 Ma肌 xW，εebe矶 r巳， γ 拈 neMe圳 仇 tlh与切odo岭 logy卢吃泸 fβt/;挝淀乱‘So 知O何 ω ω âω iaal Sci仰 e衍衍 n#κC仰已 附5 ， tr吕

Notes to Chapter 11

21 7

49 For an impressive account of the 命。rtcomings of 出εEnglish translations of Wcbcr's Sociol哩'Y ofRel告别， scc Dctlef Kantows句，‘Die Fe h1 rczcption von Max W cbcrs Studic 站出 "Hinduismus und Buddhismus" in Indicn: Ursachcn und Folgcn' , in Max Weber e India , Atti del COtlV号no InternazionaJe su la tesi Weberiana della

razionalizzazione itl rapporto all'it仇 ismo e al buddhisl附(丁u巾， 19叫， pp. 12 5 在 50 The con tÌ nuing strong interest of japanese sc益。larship in Max Webcr has so far rcceived no adequ在te attcntioll in thc West. despite considerable rcscarch achicvcments by japancsc scholarship. For a survcy, scc Uchida Yoshi达i， 'Max Wcbcr in den japanische时，ozialwissenschaften 1905- 197札 Bochul时rJahrbucb卢rOstasie价r句 schung. 4 (1981), pp. 71 甲 10 9. 51 For Înstancc, Reinhard Bendix,‘ Max Weber's interpretation ofconduct and history', A 附ricanJoumal 丛Sociol哩y ， 51 (1945 / 46), pp. 518-26‘ S2 B吨 amin Nelsoκ The Idea ofUsury: From Tribal Br。如hood 10 Uni附'Sal Olherhood (p rinceton, 1949). S3 From Max Hí泣如': Essays in Socíol锣， ed. H. H. Ger出 and C. Wright Mills (Lo ndon, 194 8). 54 日. Stuart H吨hes， Conscíousness and Society: The Reorientatíon of European Social Thought 1890寸 930 (London, 1959). See also Wolfgang J. Mommse认 Introduction to Max Weber and hís Co附mporaries ， ed. 贺。lfgang j. Mommsen and Jürgen Oste巾 m­ mel (Lo ndon, 1987) , p. 3. 55 Reinhard Bend饮， Max Weber: An Intellectual Portrait (London, 1960); German e缸，

Max Weber-Das f号le命 Darstellung， Ana非'se， Ergebnisse (Munic礼 1964). 5抖 6 Adrr双妇 1必i挝 t仅tεedl持 y Bendix 括 11让Í1黠 ns优 sel芷fεmphaωsi泣 zed 出t头在拭艺 头检 ε wanted tωo pr妃号$然 ent 仪E ‘吐 da硝s empi挝 ns汇 d仨 bιι1-翩翩ω­

$阴 仰Zl凶 O 010 唔 gisd检 E淤eV 留 Ver 汰 kMa拟 XWiεebers 岱s'w 吨 hil 刊le neglecting the ínethodological and theoret翩

ical aspects; Germ在n edn, p. 14. 57 Eduard Baumgarten, DieSammlung , 5 (1950), p. 398. 58 Dieter 日enrich， Die Einheit der Wissenschafts始re Max Webers (丁险吗en， 1952), p.68. 59 See in particular Theodor Schieder，‘Der 丁ypus in der Geschichtswissenschaft二点 Theodore Schieder, Staat und Gesen叫 ifi im Wandel unse附 Zeit (Munich, 195 时， pp. 172叫 87; Sc检缸， Geschíchte 拉斯:SSenscha斤: Eíne Einfiihrung (Muniε且， 196 5), pp. 167, 201-7. 60 KZSS. 11 (1959), PP.625ff. 61 See C. von Fer如玄， 'Der Werturteilsstreit 190伊 1956: Versuch einer wis~enschafts­ geschichdichen Interp宣告tation'， κ忍窍. I l (1959) , pp. 21 ，寸 7. 62 Ibid., p. 78. 63 For an assessment of the tendencies and results of this dispute , see the P.

218

Notes to Chapter 11

68 GPS , p. xi ì. 69 Mommse民 Max Weber , 1st edn 作品inge泣， 1959) , 2nd edn 付。binge泣， 1974); Eng1ish edition Max Weber and German Politics, 1890棚 1920 (Chicago, 1985). 如 7 oJ革部 c咄 o b Pet优εrM在咛 ye矶 r巳， Max We吵be衍ri必 nGεern 抒?附 n Pol衍 iti陆 Cα5 ， 2nd edn (London, 1956)鑫 71 Raymond Aron，‘站在x Weber und die Machtpolitik' , in Otto Stammer (ε句， Ma.:,< Weber und die Soziologie heute: Verhandlungen des 15. Deutschen Soziologentages (Tübingen, 1965), pp. 103-20; English e缸， Max Weber and Sociology Today (Oxford, 1971), pp. 83-100. 72 Ibid., p. 66. 73 Ibid. , pp. 133-5 I. 74 Ibid. , p. 25. 75 宵。lfgang Schluchter, Aspekte bürokratiscl附 Herrschafi: Studien zur Interpretation der fortschreitenden Industri号假如hafi (Munic且， 1972), 2nd ed叫Munich， 19 8 5). 76 See in particular S. N. Eisellstadt, Tradition, Changeand Modernity (New York, 1973). 77 Cf. Wolfgallg J. Mommsell alld Jürgen Osterhammel 争钩， Max Weber and I出 Con­ temporar阳(London， 19叫， pp. 574-80. 78 ln this connection particular mention should be made of Wolfgang Schluchter's srudies Die Entwícklung des 0垃identalen Ratio阳lismω: Ei附 Ana午'Se von Max Webers Gesel1schqftsgesd削化 (Tübingen， 1979) alld Rationalismus der Weltbelzerrschung: Studi，栩栩 Max Weber (Fra出furt， 1980). 79 C f. Wolfgang j. Mommsen, 'Personal conduct and societal change', in Sam WhimS民r and Scott Lash 灿)， Max Weber: Ratiollali字 and Modernity (Londo缸， 1987) , pp.35-5 1. 80 For a good survey of the llew developments in this field , see Jürgen Kocka (ed.) , Max Weber, der Histori，如 (Göttingen， 1986), being the papers on Max W，出er presented on the occasÍon of the 14th Inter出tional Co吨ress ofHistorians at S以电辛苦t (1985). 81 W涵在1m Henn怒， Max Webers Fragestellu，弩{丁凶Ìllgen， 1987). However，而s srudy, though thoughtful , decisive and full of insight，主tops short of a substantive analysis ofWebεr's historical sociology proper which alonε ∞uld prove his argument, namely, thatWeber 附nted to p在vethεway for a new understanding of man in the post-modern age.

lndex

Abramows k.i, Günther 1 58 anardùsm viii , 77 , 79，的，俐， 9 6吁 ， 10 4， II9, 13 8 anarcho-syndicalism 98 Antoni , Carlo 179 Antonio , Robert J. xi Arbeìtsausschuss für Mitteleurop在 see 宵。rking Party on Central Europe ArcoωVal1ey， Count An ton 7 Arendt, Hannah 70 aristocracy see bourgeoìsie Aron , Raymond 169, 179, 192 ascencls 口1，

innerWorldly 149 otherworldly 160 Asia , interεst in religions of 1 56, 159-60 Austria, lecture delivered in 59 B革命缸，

Prince Max 5-6 Barth, Emil 84 Bassermann, Ernst 82 Baumgarten, Eduard 26, 54, 172, 186 Bebel, August 77, 80 , 82, 91 , 104 Beethar刀， David 87 Belgium see Brussels Bell, Da niel 44, 193 茹苦ndix， Reinhard 3, 147, 183 , 191

Bergson, Henri 175 Bergstraesser, Ar nold 189 Berlin 64, 149 Bernst号in，主duard 59, 78 Bet如nann HoHweg， τheobald von, i rnme双tof 命3 gov号

'reo主ientati棚'policy

82

Bienf主泣， Werner 186

Birrningham ‘taucu矿 14 Bismarck, Prince Otto 1 1 , 24 Bissing, Baron Moritz 4 Bohrer, Karl Heinz xii bourgeoisie 54, 56, 59. 62, 65 , 74. 76, 80-1 ，邸，饵，仰， 1 0 4， 121 ， 1 始，

149, 177如9， 193 40, 85 and traditional aristocracy 3 brahrnìnism 160 Brentano, Luio 81 Bre持Litovsk (Litow汰) 12, 84 Brockdorff唰Rantzau ， Count Ulrich 6 Brussels, posting in 4 Bryce, James 14, 93 Buddhlsm 5, 147, 150, 159-60 Bülow, Prince Bernh在rd 4 Germ在n

民主ε在ucracy 58吟， 61 ，桶，饵，饵，饵，

101 , 104, 11 0- 1 卒， II4喃 15 ， II7, 119-20, 122, 125 , 145.171 , 194-5

lnd缸

220 bureaucratic apparatuses 15 , 95 , 129 七ureaucratic domination 14

bureaucratic institutions 155 七ureaucratic org在nization 123 , 142

bureaucratic state 13 七ureaucratization vii，以.9. 1 3- 1 4. 巧， 22， 29， 34酬 5.39， 46， 61-卒， 66-7 ， 93. 的，饼，

100- 1, 1 饵， 110-1 卒， 122, 133 , 141 , 147, 15 8 9, 161 , 165 , 17 2由 5 ， 182血4

豆 豆 4- 1 5 ，

1I 7-20,

>

Burckhardt， ]aco七 121 ， 18 7

4E

dk

呐 Ajoat 1Aenu

vfz 叶。-EG--AnH do 边 we-35 咳 !01 宫 "HU

俨··

ψEKW

ρ且悟

hz''F

，，警皂、，

‘，

q柄 a，

纪在

U

业、na79

nHunxu ke7d, ob4J$4 a6

萨

丘

fJ'rnB

SSSκu-uof

M

口，

已

← UI5 伽 6

l

、J

E

弘

川

creanve 144 see also domination; leadership; legitimacy; revolution China 150 civilization F辛苦-Eastern 161 industrial 173. 175 Western 160- 1, 173

飞

14 0而 3 ， 15 0 -5 ， 17 2 ， 183

vcmbmmd

63 , 66 , 7 1, 75 , 78 , 119, 132, 16 3 Carter, Erica xii Casanova, ]osé xì Chamberlain, ]oseph Stuart. Birmingham ‘caucus' 14 charisma 13 , 3丰寸 .42， 67， 101 吨， 110, 11 卒， 116-嗣 17， 120箩 130-1 ， 136,

EZUOUV

capi铃list system 抖， 3 8 -9， 53吨， 58吵，

HUEtLUO

149} modern 126

记

m 淤la 红rket.嗣嗣嗣呻峭呻

WMDAUZ WHOOSHHS ePLME-SE 卫

75.77 , 79, 85-6, 90, 109, 118 , 120, 126, 130, 13 卒， 145, 148斗， 15 卒， 157. 159, 161-卒， 179-80, 184, 192, 195 advanced JI9 early 70, 130 industrial 34, 36 , 53 ， 57- 8 ， 60， 6辛， 66 ， 71-2. 110, 152警 157 late 31 , 36甲7.45

钊口

5 6 - 8 ， 60响 1 ， 63-4， 66-7， 69， 7 0叩辛，

αCCG

capitalism 飞ríii，几 3，坷， 34， 36-9， 53吨，

class 62脚 5.95.99. 10 4警Il 4 class sodery 177 class stratifìcation 63寸 class structure 18 辛 class struggle 39.62.64-5 classes economlc 63 honorifìc 11 3 properry 63 socia163 Commun位 Manifesto 138 Confucianism 156 , 159 conservatism 181

Dahrendorf, Ra lf 195 Danish Party 92 Darwìn , Charles Robert 192 decisionism 171 , 192 dεmagifìcation see disenchantment democracy 15-16，巧， 30吨，侃，饵， 96-100， 102叩 3 ， 189-90, 192 classic在1 theory of 16 constitutional vìi, 190 direct 饵，9Ó-7

direct, SwÌss system of 17 German 189, 191 liberal 况泣， 13 ，坷， 171. 184 mass 35 , II4 , 174 parliar放在ntary 12-13 ，岭， 18- 1 9，

21-3 , 27 , 3 1, 33-5 , 46-7 , 85, 10 3, 17 8, 18 5, 19 1 plebiscitary 巧， 17， 22， 3 1 ， 33 ， 4 1 -二， 100-2, 120, 142 dcmocratic government 19, 189, 192 democratic leadership 33 , 42

lndex democrarizarion 16, 32 , 74 , 94 Denmark see Danish Party Dcutsche Dcmokrarischc Parteì (DDP) see German Democr主ric Party Diederichs , Eugen 138 disenchantment 133 , 136, 139叫0， 142-3 , 146呵7， 158…9, 17 1

seealso

m在glC

Djilas, Mìlovan 61 , 114 Domela-Nieuwenhuis, Fcrdinand 90 dominarion bureaucraric 35 , 60 charìsmaric 21 , 35 , 46 , 102, 115 , 130, 14卒， 159， 17 8

4ε mocraric 凶，巧， 3 2 ， 35 ，剂， 43 ，

101 lega121 , 42 , 46 , 115 , 117, 125 , 130-1 , 190 theo可 of legirimate vii-ix theory of the three pure types of legirimat'ε20叶， 33 ， 4 6 ，饵，

II 5-17 ， 130四 1 ， 141 tradiriona12I , 46 , II 5-16, 130 Diresch, Hans 175 Droysen, Johann Gustav 87 Dur挝leim， Emile 18 1 Dux, Günter 133 economy capita1 ist 37， 68斗， 7 1 ， 14 6 centra11y directed 118 industrial II9 market 39-40, 69叩归， 86， II 8四吟， 12 9阳 3 0 ， 16 3 ， 184

mixed 39 planned 句， 71 ， 119, 129-30

socialist 39, 69, 72, 119 Egypt 161 ancíent 61 , II7 Eisenstadt, S. N. 194 Eisner, Kurt 7 Engels , Friedrich 55-7 en1ightenment 134, 1 圳， 144, 18 4 Erzberger , Matthias 5

221

cthìc , protestant 3, 26 , 37, 57-8 , 109币 10， 126, 128 , 130- 1, 137 , 140, 145 , 149, 152, 16卒， 179， 18辛-3 cthic, spiri tually aristocraric 135 cthics 。 f convicrion 19-20, 88 , 96, 99 , 134誓 13 8 ofresponsibility 19, 88 , 100, III , 134 Eubank, Earle Edward 170 五uropε3 0 ， 45 ， 83 ， 149， 17 1 ， 173 ， 17 8

fascism 42 , 103 Italian 42， 101-2， 104寸， 191 Fatherland Party, German (Deutsche Vaterlandspartei) 83 Federarion of Li beral Students (Frei明 studenrischer Bund) 139 Fcrrero , Guilhelmo 99 feudalism 56 , 1 19 first World War 4, 11 , 28 , 30, 72 , 82 , 88…9, 101 , 138, 189 Fortschrittlìche Volkspartei see Progressive Popular Party Fraenkel, Ernst 22 France 76, 87, 180 Frankfurt, public ral1y speech at 85 Frankfurt Schoo1 45 , 188 茹苦iburg 8, 55 , 71 , 189 Freisinnige Vereinigung see Liberal Union 行eud ， Sie在mund 184 Freyer, Hans 176-9, 185 Friedman, Milton 67 Friedrich, Karl Joachim 192 funcrionalisr苔.， structural see structural funcrionalism Gadame言， Hans-Georg 186

George , Stefan 119， 137， 139.173酬4 German Democraric Party viii, 6叮，此， 85叫6

German Sociological Congres叫王 5. Deutscher Soziologent在军， Heidelberg 1964) 185 , 188， 191 寸

222

lndex

German Sociologìcal Socie叭Deutsche Gesellschaft ftir Soziologìe) 169, 177

日εnrich， Dieter 186啊?

Germanyx， 5斗 .11.22寸 .28.3 0 ，日 .37.

Heuss. 丁heodor 191

hero ethic 135 Herr, David xi

60晴 1.72咿 3.

Hindenbu窍， Paul von Beneckendorff5

17 0 • 1 72寸 .175 -6， η§咛，

挝induism 5. 147 , 15 0• 15 6• 159-60

84-5. 87, 89. 139. 148. 181. 183 , 185.187.189, 192 the Federal Republic of 4 5, 185 -6, 188 偷9 1

lmperìal 3. 10-12，抖，埠， 35 ， 74. 79-81 , 83.86, 90, 173 N在tional Socìalist 179 Wcimar Repu挝ic in 22 , 99, 1 句也70， 173. 17 8, 190, 192 Wìlhelmine viiì，巧，饵.175 ， 191 Gerth. Hans H. 183 Giddens, Anthony ￥iì， x Glassmann，议。nald M. xi Great Britain 口， 14. 16-17 , 45.76 , 81 畔辛， 173.180

Hintze. Otto 171 historicism 171 , 184. 188 Hìrler, Adolf 170. 191 旦。她es; Thomas 20 Honigsheim. Paul 180. 184, 191 Hughes, H. Smart 121. 184, 187 Hus挺过，Ed mund 180 ideal rype 仪， 55 -6.坷， III , II5 , 1 础， 12 3寸 .1 2 7斗.14 1 • 1 45 -6.15 1 •

171-卒.181-2， 18 7. 1 95

ideal-丐rpical method 121-2. 125. 171 ideasof1914 Il, 138 illegìtimacy 20

C口ndolf， Friedrich 137

imperialism 埠， 3 0， 83. 1 9 1

Gutmann, Bernhard 83

culmra124 lndian religious thought. achievements m 159 ind ustrìalism. 气lVestern I 8 3 lnternanonal, Second 83. 92 lslam 150 ltaly 17伊80 Roberto Michels and 87-9

Haas舌，

Hugo 84

H在bermas.Jürgen 44寸 .188.192 H在i七，wachs， Maurìce 180

∞4 内问

hiF 川m 肌J

UVAd 目

aJ 啕

,d

呻/ ，。

J

冒A

qh

、"‘‘

u

、ae

飞Jnau

户Bwnd

.HM 叩 l ， Nnnptvptv内 叫川 U

二句也

190, 195

2hMUVJVJnu 2UMhknnHAL KKKK 9E lqn

、

He盯 enms 让山 is， Wi过n检 1双el加 m 宫n2巧3. 1 46， 148, 155 ,

Ja 缸n 盹oska革杂杂杂喃喃白 -B 帽 嗣帽 帽

Japan 180, 183 Jaspers. Karl 3.24. 169-70. 186 Jena, Roberto Michels' attempt to obt:在in Habilitation in 88 Judaism 147. 150 r俨品 p'2224 句d

怆 H .em 肌 1

Jaffé. Edgar 89

qdqdpwρ

Hamburg. dock，εr's strìke 94 Harnack, Adolf von 137 Hartma孜孜， Ludo Mor tÏz 5 日在ussm主nn. Conrad 5 Hayek, Friedrich 70 到egel. Georg Wilhelm Friedrich I 巧， 15 8 Heideggε言， Martin 24 日eidelberg 99, 180- 1 挝eìdelberg Association for Lcgal Policy (Heidel如rger Vereinigung für Politik des Rech吟 6 Heidelberg Workers and Soldiers Counci184

lndex Kocka, jürgen xiì , 9，勾 K丛nìg. Ren告 185

K总ttlεr， Wolfgang xii

labour

II

agricultur在114 8 -9

Lahriola, Arturo 87 Lamprecht, Ka r1 17 8 Landshur, Sìegfried 14 8, 15 8, 171 , 195 L盘时nstein (castle) 13 8 咛 law formal 1' 63 natural16，却， 3 1 ， 18 9

Roman 163 suhstanrive 163 leader, polirical 4 1 叫 2， 46， 98 ， 100, 118 leader democracy 巧， 17-18 ， 21 斗， 33-6， 41 ， 68 ， 99， 101 叩2， ]20, 142, 191 leaderless democracy 17， 34， 3 6 ，料，仰， 101 leadership viii , 13- 1 4，凶， 3 卒，的， 76 ， 95. 98, 101 , 114, 118 , 137, 15 6 charisma ric vii , i.x.间，凶， 18 ，川， 3 6 ， 101 叩2， 17 1 ， 18 9， 19 1 由主

democraric 33 , 42 political 10, 12- 13, 15-20 , 23 , 31, 35 , 9 8 喃 9， 101

L吨时 ofNarions

6

Lef合vre， Wol每ang7 0

Left, the New 1 伊 Legìen , Karl 77, 9 1 legìrimacy 口， 20- 1 ， 33， 44四9， 102, 116 , 130-1 , 149, ]90, 195 charismaric 22 , 47 Leipzig 178 Le nin, Wladimir l. 68 Lepsius , M. Rainer 170 levellers 30 liberty 19 liheral order 辛9， 3 0 ， 118 liberal parries 4, 7 8, 85 liberal state 40 liheral 白白句句

223

Liberal Union (Freisinnige Vereinigung) 4 liberals 4, 12, 23 , 30, 38, 57 , 85 , 97, 111 1ì beralism vii , x, 14， 23-5 ，二7-3 0 ， 4 1 ， 43 ， 100， 173. 1 75. 1 77咛， 181 , 189 economlC 179 Manchester 70 neo町 7 0， 184

radical ] 93 Liehknecht, K在r1 94 life帽conduct ix rarionall33 , 144 rarionalizarion of 161 1βcke， John 20 Lo ria, Achille 88咛 Lö wenstein , Karl22 , 169, 184，吟 1-2 Löwith , Karl 59, 148 , 171 , 195 Ludεndorff， Erich 5 Lukács, Georg 62 , 156, 169, 180 Lutheranism 137, 173 Luxemburg. Rosa 78 , 80, 94 Machiavel毡， Niccolδ 血，巧， 186，吟 I

McNall , ScOtt G. xi Magdeburg, Verein für Sozialpolirik at 80, 93 magic, religious 150 disenchantment with 136, 143 Mannheìm 3 ， 77， 91 叫Z Mannheim , Karl 169, 180- 1 Marburg, Roberto Michels ìn 77，的 Marcuse， lferbert 侃， 7 0， 192 Marx, Karl viii, x-xì, 26叮>37咛， 41 ， 53-6 5 ， 67叶，刀， 75 ， 119, 122, 126 , 12轩30， 150， 171-2， 183 ， 192

Marxìsm vii, 44, 54吁，纱， 68 ， 73 ， 75 ， 121-2, 149, 178 , 184.193 neo- 193 Marxism-Leninism 49，句， 121 ， 184 materialism, historical 55-6，饵.15 0 Maurenbrecher, Max 139 M在yer， J在cob Peter 191 Meitzen, August 89

lndex

224

Menger, Karl 1 归， 188 Menshevíks 80 Michels , Roberto 白泣，闷， 3 1 ， 4 2 ， 54，俑， 71 , 77, 80- 1, 87-104, 138, 191 conflict with Weber 89 Mill ,john Stuart 173 Mills, C.飞~right 183 Mommsen , Theodor 99 Mosca , Gaεtano 梳， 95 ， 99 Müller, Adam 138 Müller町Armack， Al fred 70, 179 Muller， jεrry Z. 177叩8 Müller-Meiningen, Ernst 4 Munich 73 , 83 Mussolir泣， Benito 42, 10扣3 mythx, 133, 135 斗， 139-40， 143-4 natìon 12, 25, 137, 186 nacion响srate， German 巧，二9- 3 0 ， 83 ， 18 9

Nationa1 Socialism x, 169, 177-9, 191 Nation革l-Liberalísm， German 24 , 82 nationalisrn 184, 191-2 nacionalìzation 6 ，们， 63 ， 65 -6， 85-6 natura1 rights 26 Naumann, Friedrich 4.82 Nelson. Benjamin 183 neo-Ar istotelianism 190 neo-Kantianism 55 , 1 月. 17辛， 193 neo-Keynesianism 193 neo-líberalísm 70, 184 neo.-Marxism 193 neo-posi tivísm 188 , 194 New Left. the 1 如 Nietzsc如. Friedrich 54. 口， 71 ， 10 9响 10， 135. 1 7 0 ， 17辛畔 3

Nietzscheanismγiii. 凡此 .20， 26吁， 43 ，

55 , 154, 18 5, 192

Oppenheimer, Franz 175 ossifìαtio及 114- 町， 157 see also petri伽 faction Osterhammel, jürgen xi Ostrogorski, Maurice 间， 80，的， 97

Palyi, Melchior 170 Pareto , Vilfredo 88, 95 , 99, 103, 181 parliament 11, 17 parli在mentary der弦。cr主cy

see

demoω

cracy，严主liamentary

parliamentary monarchy 11 parli在mentary system 10-12. 16-17. 巧， 74, 99, 17 1, 190 parliamentarization 12，丰4， 99 Parsons，丁alcott 18 ← 3 ， 186咄8

party bureaucratic 14, 74, 80, 93.100 honorific 14, 125 ideology-orie川ed

(Weltanschauungs-

parteì) 100 politica1 98 party machine 闷， 80 party organization 80 party syste白棋 petrifaction 116 , 157. 159 see a!so ossillcaOon Petrograd 83 P在ster， Bernhard 1 月 .171 ， 186 Platonic ideas 123 Poland 148 Popper. Karl 44 , 184 positivism 184 logical 122, 193 neo- 188 , 194 presidential system, American 17 Preuss, Hugo 5 Progressive Popular Party (Fortschritt.响 liche Volkspartei) 4 Protestantism 138, 140, 160-1 prophetism, judaic 136, 14卒， 15 6 Prussia 82. 84, 138 pseudo-constitutionalis黯伊 10

pure type ix, 47, 1 巧 .118 ， 128-32. 145-6, 153, 155, 17辛 puritan asceticism 14卒. 156 puritan theology 137 puritan religiosity 137, 162 p泣ritanism 26，口.136叮， 149. 160 ， 173 ， 180

lndex rationalism 136 , 146, 156 , 160 rationality 以. 1 肘， 143吨， 146. 159-64, 174, 176 • 17 8-9. 192 也 rma1 37斗， 4 1 ， 69且72， 75 ， 114, 1 码， 128-9, 132. 14 1-4, 152. 161 咱4， 181 , 192-3 , 195 functional (只icht铲eitsrationalität) 127-9.131 , 163 substantive 38 , 70呻 1 ， 128. 161-2. 164-5. 181 • 195 rationalization ix-x. 13 , 25 , 29, 34-5 , 100, 109斗卒， 117, 126叮， 133. 1 37. 140叶， 143叶， 14 6 吁， 15 2寸， 157- 6 4. 1 7 2 酬 3，

195 form a1 ix，巧. IIO, II 卒， 142, 145. 1刃， 157.1 6 5, 17 2-4 reform consti t'..l tional 82 electora1 82 Reformation, German 139 Rehberg, Karl-Siegbert 25 relìgion 133 , 13 6蛐 8， 147啪 5 1 ， 153 ， 159. 179- 80.193. 195 oriental 160 world 140. 146吁， 1 日 .155-6，

•

159唱61 ， 18 3

Renner. Karl 78 revolution 92• 97 charismatic 131. 1 55 German (19 18- 19) 5. 3弘 72， 84寸 Russian (吟05) 36, 79- 80 1怡然ian， Februa巧， 83 Russian, October 60 socialist 39, 60, 78 Rickert, Heinrich 1 月， 129， 17 2 Röhric缸， Wilfried 88 , 104 Romanticism 139, 174 Rome 91 Rosenberg, Al fred 177 Ro出， Günther 3, 146, 1 抖， 182 Rousseau , Je在n气Jacques 23.31.94, 184 rounruzanon 34. IIO, 112, II 俨 17.

225 13 0 - 1 • 1 4 2 ， 15 早.154叩 5 ，

157, 159,

172 Runciman, Walter G. 112 Russia 7. 36. 40, 73. 83

Scheidemann, Philipp 83 Scheler, Max 180 Schelting. Al exander von 171 , 186 Schieder, Theodor 187 Schluchter. Wolfgang 20， 143 ， 146，咐， 194 Schmitt. Carl 102, 171. 190-2 Schmol1 er, Gustav von 9, 68. 171 , 188 Schumpeter.Joseph 99, 169, 180 Schutz. Alfred 180 Schwentker. Wolfga吨xl1 sClencε134 ， 139， 144.14 6 ， 15 2 ， 157，

159, 171 , 187 SClennsη1147

Second Intern在tiona183.9 2 5 位 ， Henri 180 selιdetermination 12- 巧，叫什 9，础， 30叩4， 3 6 ， 3 8

Shils， Edw在rd 182

Siebeck, Paul 180 Social Democrats Independent 85 M号。刘ty 饵.84-5

Social Democratic Party. German vii相说ii， 6， 11 ，闷，抖， 56, 59, 74, 76, 78-8 5. 87 -9 5, 9h 100, 104 Social Policy Association (飞lerein 岛r Sozialpo1itik) 9. 36，拙. 80- 1, 89, 93, 175 socia1 ism vi茧，刃， 56吁. 5 步-6 1.65-6，句， 71 寸 .77吵.84-6， 89，惧，饵， 1 0 4，

18 4, 195 Socialist Party, ltalian 87，叭， 104 socialization see also nationaliz础。n 37, 61 , 86, 140 soclety capitalist 35 , 45 ， 56， 73 ， 76， 13争

lndex

226

society (cont.) industrial 30, 34-5 , 37阳 8 ， 43-4， 4 6 ， 48 , 54 , 59, 63- 6, 6 吉， 73 ， 120, 15 8,

Troelt阿拉， Ernst 173 , 180

Turin 88 , 99 Turner, Chris xìì

174， 17 6 ， 193响4

Sombart, Werner 句， 180 Sonntags去reis ， Georg Lukác窑'sdeb在ting club 180 Sorel , Georges 87 , 138 sovereignty , popular 巧， 99 Spann, Otmar 175 Spengler, Oswald 173 Stammler, Rudolf 1 58 Steding, Christoph 177-8 Stinnes, Hugo 39 Stockholm Peace Conference 83 S位eisand， ]ürgen 121

structural functionalism 181 , 183 , 1胁， 193

Student Movement 193叫 syndicalism viii , 77 , 79，的， 8 9-90， 93叫， 96 , 99, 138 Tawney, Richard Henry 180 Tenbruck. Friedrìch 143 , 146呻7， 15 1 ， 15 8, 187-8

Theiner, Peter 4 Th yssen, August 39 Tobler, Mìna 7 丁oennies， Ferdinand 174, 179 Tolstoi , Le o Count 96 Topitsch, Ernst 44 Toqueville, Alexis de 1 峙， 186 tota1i tarianism 184 trade unions 36吁，的， 8 0- 1 ，问， 90叶， II8 由 19

Uníted States x, 14, 36， 40， 72， 80，坷， 93 , Il 9 , 170, 173 , 179-8 8, 193 、 valu舌-judgement 9， 1 月， J7 2 , 176, 186, 188-90 , 194

value-relationship 131 , 180 Vereinigung, Sozialpolitische 81 Vienna 57 飞的ch， ]oachim 171

Weber, Al fred 句， 173 ， 175- 6 ， 18 5 Weber, Marianne 170 welfare institutions II 8-19, 129 welfare斗tate 35 , 40, I I 吉 Wie妃，Leopo!d von 175 , 1 芮 朝 lhelm II (German Emperor) 4挚 9- 10 Winckelmann, ]ohannes, 190 Wolff, Theodor 85 working dass 1 1 ，刀， 60， 64- 8 ， 74-6 ， 79-80, 82, 84, 94 , ]04, 118

Working Party on Central Europe (Arbeitsausschu部在ir Mitteleuropa) 4寸 world-views ] 34叮， 139， 144， 147， 151-5 , 161 , ]63-4, 188

maglc 159 religíous 110, 136, 141 , 158 , 17二 Youth Movement 139