While reading Max Weber’s the Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism I had to
appreciate the bold nature of his critical assertions. It is one thing to
suggest a change and another entirely to demand “the naïve manner of conceptualizing
capitalism by reference to a “pursuit of gain” must be relegated to the
kindergarten of cultural history and methodology and abandoned once and for
all.” Pg. 153
While reading this I was harkened back to Hobbs’s Leviathan. Works seek to overhaul
previous notions and redefine the topic they are writing about. I think Weber
does an excellent job of providing a frame work upon which a more scholarly
analysis of economics can be understood. I think both Hobbs and Weber suffer
from similar critical flaws. They really underestimate other cultures as well
as overemphasize the necessity of defining things formally.
I think Weber errs in categorizing other cultures. “The
organization of political and social groups on the basis of status has existed
historically on a broad scale… yet the Rex et Regnum has appeared only in the west”
Pg. 151 I Think he does not know enough about the various levels and the
complex nature of Bushido culture in japan. They have many classes and
extremely sophisticated etiquette. There were many layers from Shogun to Daimyo
into the Bushi class. Quite frankly before the English even knew what tea was,
the Japanese had developed their intricate “tea ceremony”. Additionally, his
antiquated view point that other cultures didn’t use complicated math or have
ledgers is untrue. Some of the earliest evidence of anything written is ledgers
created for trade.
"They really underestimate other cultures as well as overemphasize the necessity of defining things formally."
ReplyDeleteCould not agree more with the first, but push back ever so slightly on the second. In the case of Hobbes, he painstakingly goes about ensuring that his audience has a very clear understanding of every word he would be using for conceptualization. Definitely overkill, we can all agree, but there is a point to it. Different people use different words, well, differently. By spelling it out, there can be no ambiguity. I think Weber does a better job, however, because he is not nearly as thorough as Hobbes is. He gives you the essentials and lays them out fairly well, with less of the long-windedness that occurs in Hobbes.