48674344 max weber on naitons and nationalism

8/2/2019 48674344 Max Weber on Naitons and Nationalism

1/31

Canadian Journal of Sociology/Cahiers canadiens de sociologie 29(3) 2004 389

Max Weber on Nations and Nationalism:

Political Economy before Political Sociology*

Zenonas Norkus

Abstract: Although Weber voiced doubts about the scientific value of the concepts of ethnicityand nation, in his work one can detect the outlines of two theories of nation. In the political-sociological theory (exposed in Economy and Society), the nation is understood as a status groupunited by common historical memory and fighting for the prestige of power and culture with othernations. Besides that, in his early work Weber outlines the political-economical (or national-economical) theory of nation, conceiving nation as the organizational form of economic associationwhich is optimal in the fight for elbow-room in the globalized Malthusian world as described bythe classical model of long-term economic dynamics. Weberian political-economical concept ofnations and nationalism is explicated using recent idea of rent-seeking, and is applied to highlight the

deficiencies of the prevailing E.Gellner-E.Hobsbawm-B.Anderson theory of nations and nationalism.

Rsum:Bien que Weber ait des hsitations concernant la valeur scientifique des notions de lanation et lethnicit cest possible distinguer les esquisses des deux thories de la nation dansses travaux. La thorie politique-sociologique (en conomie et socit) dfine la nation comme unegroupe de statut uni par la mmoire historique commune, qui se battre contre les autres nations pourle prestige de pouvoir et culture. Dans ses travaux premiers Weber profile aussi la thorie politique-conomique (ou national-conomique) de la nation. Ici la nation est conceptualise comme uneforme dorganisation de lassociation conomique, qui est optimale pour la lutte pour lspace vitaledans le monde selon Malthus (comme il cest dcrit dans le modle classique de la dynamiqueconomique dune longue dure) globalise. La conception weberienne politique-conomique desnations et nationalisme est rconstruite en utilisant la notion contemporain e d es lutte pour desrentes (rent-seeking). Cette conception est aussi utilis pour exposer les dfauts de la thorie de lanation et nationalisme de E.Gellner-E.Hobsbawm-B.Anderson, qui prvaut jusqu prsent.

* Acknowledgement: I would like to thank three anon ymous reviewers of this article for theirdetailed critical engagement with it, their many helpful suggestions, including very generousinstructions how to improve its language.


2/31

390 Canadian Journal of Sociology

1. Similar view are expressed in Aron 1991 (1964):27, Mitzman 197 0:147, Mommsen 1974(1959): 40 ff.

2. I am referring to chapter 5 Ethnic Groups and chapter 9 Political Communities in the secondpart of the English edition of Economy and Society by Guenther Roth and Claus Wittich(Weber 1978 (1922)) which I will cite further on.

Introduction

In one of his essays comparing the theoretical views of Max Weber and ErnestGellner, Perry Anderson noted: Whereas Weber was so bewitched by the spellof nationalism that he was never able to theorize it, Gellner has theorizednationalism without detecting the spell (Anderson, P. 1992: 205). Andersonwants to say that Gellners theory of nationalism (Gellner 1983, Gellner 1994)cannot explain the attractiveness of the ideas of nationalism. About Weber,Perry Anderson claims that although the famous German sociologist in hispolitical views was an ardent German nationalist, he had no well-consideredconcept of nations and nationalism, and unreflectively adopted the dominantideology in Wilhelmine Germany.

In my paper, drawing on Webers early writings (some of them becamemore accessible only after their reprint in his Gesamtausgabe), I try to

reconstruct Webers early political-economic (or national-economic) conceptof nation. This is done in the second section of my paper. The first sectiondiscusses the later and more widely known political-sociological concept ofnation, which is documented by Economy and Society, and the publicationsduring the First World War. In the fourth and concluding section, I will try toevaluate both of Webers concepts of nation from the viewpoint of thecontemporary discussion about nations and nationalism.Most importantly, Iwill attempt to show here how Webers early political-economic concept ofnations and nationalism can be useful for the revival of the political-economicconcept of nationhood which has unfortunately been eclipsed in currentdiscussions. But firstly, I must explain how my contribution is related to theexisting body of literature on Webers notions about nations and nationalism.

One of the reasons why Perry Anderson and other authors writing about the

irrationalism and arbitrariness of Webers nationalism1 do not find theconceptual foundations of his political choice, is that in their searches theyrestrict themselves to the quite fragmentary chapters of WebersEconomy andSociety devoted to ethnicity and nations, written between 1910 and 1914, andnot prepared by Weber himself for publication.2 In my view, the texts, whichare classified as Webers political publications, are equally important andinformative documents on the Weberian concepts of nation and nationalism.David Beetham (Beetham 1985 (1974): 119) has already criticized the viewxxxxxxxx


3/31

Political Economy before Political Sociology 391

that Webers political publications are not relevant to understand his theoreti-

cal views. His bookMax Weber and the Theory of Modern Politics is one ofthe many contributions to the considerable body of literature on Webersnationalism. This literature is centered on the question of his political valuecommitments: was he nationalist rather than liberal or democrat, orvice versa?How is his nationalism compatible with his reputation as an individualist, aliberal and democratic thinker, whose theory of plebiscitary democracy wasan important contribution to the political theory of democracy?

The prevailing view of Weber as an ardent German nationalist was moststrongly stated and carefully documented by Wolfgang Mommsen (1974-(1959): 4096), supported by Raymond Aron 1991 (1964), and is accepted byAndreas Anter (1995), Beetham, Perry Anderson, Nicholas Xenos (1993) andothers. The proponents of this view maintain that (German) nationhood was thesupreme value and purpose of Webers political theory. The critics of this view

include Catherine Colliot-Thlne (1990), Wilhelm Hennis (Hennis 1987;Hennis 1996), Lawrence A. Scaff (Scaff 1989: 31ff), and recently Kari Palonen(2001). While pinpointing the influence of Nietzsches radical elitism onWebers world outlook (Hennis 1987: 167194), Hennis foregrounds the rootsof Webers value commitments in the Old European tradition of practicalphilosophy as described by the German historian Otto Brunner (Brunner (1956)1968). According to Hennis (Hennis 1987: 59114), Weber inherits from thistradition his concern with the quality of human beings or humankind(Menschentum), sharing this concern both with Nietzsche and the SocialDarwinism of his time. In Hennis view, Weber was interested in nationhoodand the national state not because he was committed to them as ultimatevalues, but only because under modern conditions they have became un-

avoidable matters of fact which must be taken into account by all realistic orsober (nchtern) proposals on how to improve the quality of human beingsand life conduct (Lebensfhrung) (Hennis 1987: 8288).

However, the most important challenge to the prevalent view is KariPalonens paper Was Max Weber a Nationalist? (2001). This challenge ispart of his enterprise to reestablish Webers reputation as a liberal anddemocratic thinker by interpreting his work as a continuation of another partof Old European heritage the rhetorical tradition (Palonen 1998; Palonen1999; Palonen 2002). Palonen pleads for a rhetorical turn in political sciencewhich means its transformation into the kind of discourse analysis concernedwith redescription techniques used by politicians and publicists in theirspeech acts to adapt the existing political language to the contingencies ofpolitical action. Rhetorical turn also means the transformation of political

science into the kind of history of political and social concepts concerned withthe (macro)changes in the vocabulary of some specific community or with(micro)changes in the vocabulary of some specific author.


4/31


3. See also the next section in this article.4. I provide the criticism of this thesis of Palonen in the next section.

These changes can be either those of reference (narrowing or broadening)

or of attitude (positive, negative, neutral) of the authors use of certain specificwords. Analyzing changes in Webers use of the word nationalism, Palonenemphasizes that Weber was rather reluctant to identify himself as a national-ist. He finds only one passage of this kind. This is the well-known statementfrom Webers inaugural lecture, published in 1895: we economic nationalistsmeasure the classes who lead the nation or aspire to do so with the onepoli-tical criterion we regard as sovereign (Weber 1994 (1895):20). Palonencontrasts this self-identification with Webers statements in his late publicisticwritings. Here he distances himself from nationalism, describing his politicalstandpoint as national anti-nationalist: our policy will furthermore, ne-cessarily be anti-nationalistic, not antinational (Weber 1991b (1918):122). Inthese writings, Weber associates nationalism with expansionist, annexionistand imperialist policies, as can be seen from the following statement: we are

now facing the necessity of a complete reorientation of the foreign policy. Thisshould be a national but not an imperialistic one (Weber 1991a (1918): 114).

Palonen explains this contrast by the change in the reference or scope ofWebers concept of nationalism: late Weber identifies nationalism with whatin his earlier word usage would be referred to as one specific species of na-tionalism: expansionist, imperialistic nationalism. But what did national-ism mean for Weber in his earlier, not yet narrower usage? As I understandPalonens argument, nationalism in this sense can be defined as a positiveattitude to nation. However, in Palonens view such a definition makes senseonly provided there is a clear idea of what nation is. Did Weber have suchan idea? After surveying Webers casuistic reflections on nation3 in hisEconomy and Society, Palonen comes to the conclusion (in my view, erroneous

one) that they amount to deconstruction or dissolution of the very conceptof nation: as an analytic concept nation only refers to a vague expectationof a feeling of solidarity (Palonen 2001: 207).4 Was then Weber a national-ist? Palonen hesitates. On the one hand, he concedes that Nation remainedfor Weber a quasi-mythical label containing a positive value, and he upheldthis value by disregarding the specific chances contained in his own nominalistdissolution of the concept (Palonen 2001: 210). On the other, he maintainsthat in Webers last years, his positive attitude to the German state wasstronger than his attitude to the German nation. Describing this as a rela-tively marginal change, he concludes nevertheless: it seems to me that therelatively marginal change at the level of the attitudes makes it justified to callWeber, although not a nationalist, an apologist of the nation state within theconcert of great powers (Palonen 2001: 210).


5/31


Palonens analysis has the merit of showing that Webers view on nations

and nationalism changed. However, I will try to show that it changed not in theway Palonen maintains. This change can be described not as the narrowing,but rather as the widening of his original concept of nationalism. Thenationalism late Weber is criticizing (expansionist and imperialist national-ism of great powers) was his own early nationalism. Most importantly, thisnationalism was economic nationalism, as Weber says in his famous state-ment cited above.

By questioning the presumption that Webers nationalism has no well-considered ideas on nations and nationalism that serve as a conceptual frame-work for his political choices, the criticisms of the received view by Palonenand Hennis and others are useful. Hennis is only interested in discovering morefundamental value premises in Webers thinking that would make nationalismappear as rational in its role as a means to some more ultimate value. How-

ever, Webers political commitment to nationalism or (later) the national anti-nationalist policy of the German state, had descriptive premises, too, whicharticulated some specific views on what nations and nationalism are. Thereconstruction of these (changing) premises and the discussion of their rele-vance for contemporary work on nations and nationalism is the main objectiveof this article.

Neither Palonen nor other researchers pay due consideration to the realmessage of early Webers self-description as an economic nationalist. Webersays he is about to speak about nationalism and nations in terms of the dis-cipline he represents. This discipline was political economy, which in theGermany of Webers times was characteristically called national economy(Nationalkonomie), its name referring to the importance of nation to the

very constitution of its subject. In my reconstruction of Webers thinking onnations and nationalism, I will take Webers roots in national economyseriously, proceeding from the assumption that his early writings on nationsand nationalism are as important, as his more widely known contributions inEconomy and Society.

1. Webers Political-Sociological Concept of Nation

1.1. Casuistry as Deconstruction?

The reader searching for a detailed theoretical analysis of ethnicity and na-tionalism in Webers Economy and Society has (together with Anderson) to bedisappointed. The relatively short chapters on ethnicity and nationalism are

mostly devoted to the criticism of existing definitions of nations and ethnicity.The German sociologist lists in a pedantic manner the casuistic difficulties andexceptions compromising the efforts to define ethnicity or nation in terms ofcertain objective traits (race or origin, territory of residence, economic life,


6/31


5. Es liesse sich ein Begriff von Nation wohl nur etwa so definieren: sie ist eine gefhlsmssigeGemeinschaft, deren adquater Ausdruck ein eigener Staat wre, die also normalerweise dieTendenz hat, einen solchen aus sich hervorzutreiben.

etc.). He even raises the question whether a future rigorous sociological

science will be able to do without the concepts of ethnicity and nation byusing a more exact classification scheme in which there is no place for suchterms (as in the dictionary of the modern physicist there is no more place forconcepts of folk physics such as wet or cold).

All in all, the notion of ethnically determined social action subsumes phenomena that a rigoroussociological analysis as we do not attempt it here would have to distinguish carefully . Itis certain that in this process the collective term ethnic would be abandoned, for it is unsuitablefor a really rigorous analysis. The concept of the ethnic group, which dissolves if we defineour terms exactly, corresponds in this regard to one of the most vexing, since emotionally chargedconcepts: the nation, as soon as we attempt a sociological definition (Weber 1978 (1922): 394395).

Bryan S. Green (1988: 179266) discloses the roots of this period ofWebers deconstructive style of conceptual analysis in the tradition of legalscience, and provides a very sensitive description: Weber conducts a concen-

trated containment, belittlement, and undermining of powerful cathectic con-cepts taken from the social context, using literary methods like parenthetic sus-pension of ordinary usage, metonymic emptying, and ironic inversion (Green1988:245). Nation and race are modern concepts with an especially strongcathectic power. According to Greens description (Green 1988: 236246),Webers sociological casuistry proceeds by systematic suspension of the mean-ings of the terms nation, ethnic group, and race in conventional socialdiscourse, developing a network of qualifications and disclaimers which triesto cover in an exhaustive way the relevant considerations and circumstances.

However, scepticism toward the scientific value of these concepts was notWebers own final word. After casuistically criticizing the definitions ofnation and ethnicity that he knew, Weber pointed out which of these

definitions (despite all their various deficiencies) seemed to him most appro-priate (pending the creation of a more precise sociological nomenclature):

We shall call ethnic groups those human groups that entertain a subjective belief in their commondescent because of similarities of physical type or of customs or both, or because of memories ofcolonization and migration; this belief must be important for the propagation of group formation;conversely, it does not matter whether or not an objective blood relationship exists (Weber 1978(1922): 389).

On nation in general Weber decides to state only this: It would be possibleto define the concept of the nation roughly as follows: it is a communitybased on feeling (gefhlsmssige Gemeinschaft), for which its own state(eigener Staat) would be an adequate expression; therefore, it normally tendsto bring about such a state (Weber 1924 (1912):484).5 In contemporary


7/31


6. About Webers concept of ethnicity see Bodemann 1993, Jackson 1991 (1982/83), Man-nese 1947.

7. As a matter of fact, in 190506 under the influence of the Ukrainian political thinker MykhailoDragomanov, Weber came to the conclusion that cultural autonomy and the federal state can bea viable solution of the nationalist predicament. In the federal state the nation has its own(eigener), but no independent state. See Beetham 1985 (1974): 130; Mommsen 1974 (1959):6164.

8. Only with this provision Bryan S. Greens description of Webers work as casuistic sociology(Green 1988: 226 ff) can be accepted.

discussions it is usual to discuss separately the theoretical problems concerning

ethnic communities, and those involving nations as well as nationalism.Webers concept of ethnicity having already been discussed in the literature,6

Id like to limit my analysis to Webers concept of nation and nationalism.Palonen qualifies Webers definition of nation above as anachronistic,

because Weber allegedly universalizes the connection between nation andstate (Palonen 2000: 206). He considers as Webers last word on the subjectthe following statement:

If the concept of nation can in any way be defined unambiguosly, it certainly cannot be stated interms of empirical qualities common to those who count as members of the nation. In the sense ofthose using the term at a given time, the concept undoubtedly means, above all, that it is proper toexpect from certain groups a specific sentiment of solidarity in the face of other groups. Thus, theconcept belongs in the sphere of values (Weber 1978 (1922): 922).

However, in this statement Weber only describes the usage prevalent in thesocial and political discourse of his time (in the sense of those using the termat a given time), not providing any analytic concept of his own (Cf. Palonen2000: 207). Sociological analysis is not bound to accept or follow uncriticallysuch usage. Weber provides his own tentative sociological working defini-tion of nation in (Weber 1924 (1912): 484). Palonens reproach of anachro-nism loses its bite if the details of Webers careful wording are taken intoconsideration: (1) Weber refers to own, not independent state (so Palonentranslates Webers eigener Staat)7; (2) Weber writes that a nation normallytends to bring about such a state (normalerweise die Tendenz hat, einensolchen aus sich hervorzutreiben). So the relation between nationhood andstatehood is only probable (that of adequate causation) or holds onlyceteris

paribus if there are no innumerable special circumstances preventing its

realization. Sopace Palonen (cf. Palonen 2000: 210), the concept ofNation isexplicated by Weber in his standard manner in terms of chances.Speaking in general terms, the explication of the fundamental sociologicalconcepts in terms of chances is Webers original technique of how to constructsocial-scientific concepts safeguarded against deconstruction by casuisticanalysis.8


8/31


1.2. Nations as Status Groups

A definition identifying a certain phenomenon is not the same as a theory ex-plaining the phenomenon. In the case of ethnicity and nation, such a theoryshould explain how and why people acquire or lose ethnic or national identity,why and how ethnic communities and nations appear and disappear. BecauseWeber believed that scientific sociology in the future would eliminate the veryterms of ethnicity and nation from its dictionary, it is no more correct todemand from him such a theory than to demand that a modern physicistprovide, for example, theories of holes or heat. However, Webers expectationthat future sociological analysis would do without the concepts of ethnicityand nation, has not yet been fulfilled by sociological analysis. Conversely,at the close of the 20th century, the study of nations and nationalism has turnedinto a booming industry. Importantly, Weber provides several ideas which are

useful for those working on a positive theory of nations and nationalism.One of the most widely accepted elements from Webers social scientificlegacy is his social stratification model, distinguishing three dimensions ofsocial stratification: wealth or opportunities in the market, prestige or honor,and (political) power (see Weber 1978 (1922): 302307, 926940). The cate-gories of people differing in their economic situation are designated as classes.Groups, differing by their status in the hierarchy of prestige are referred to asestates or status groups (Stnde). In modern societies there are legally noestates, but Weber drew attention to the simple fact that even though law candeclare people to be equal and valued equally, they do not respect and valueeach other equally. People have not only material (economic welfare), butalso ideal interests, aspiring to be respected and valued by others. One canimagine a society where wealth is distributed equally, but not a society where

everyone would be respected equally. Prestige or honor are positional goods,which disappear if everyone has an equal amount. Social life is a struggle ofpeople not only for wealth or economic welfare, but also for honor (prestige).

If one can detect any positive leitmotif in Webers skeptical and criticalstatements about the definitions of ethnicity and nations, then it is this idea: thedivision into ethnic groups and especially into nations is part of the hierarchyof prestige. The realm of honor, which is comparable to the status orderwithin a social structure, pertains also to the interrelations of political struc-tures (Weber 1978 (1922): 911). Trying to define more concretely thesingularity of national feelings, Weber describes them as how one feelsabout power prestige or cultural prestige of his own nation state(Weber 1978 (1922): 395, 910912, 925926).

The feelings of power prestige are the feelings of pride in citizenship orallegiance to a powerful state. States, just like people, struggle for prestigeor honor and are divided into an informal hierarchy of prestige where thedifferences between the individual ranks of prestige are no smaller than the


9/31


9. In doing this, I am drawing upon the work of Randall Collins. See Collins 1986: 145161.

differences between the brahmins and pariahs of ancient India. The title of

honor for the highest estate in the league of nations in Webers times was theGreat Power (Grossmacht). In the Weberian political-sociological perspec-tive, nations are the broadest status groups. All members of a nation rankinghigh in the league of nations can enjoy a positional good called prestige thatsatisfies their ideal interests in a way comparable to the satisfaction of theseinterests by membership in the positively privileged status groups (estates) oftraditional societies (so e.g. American citizenship is in our days a title of honorcomparable with titles of earl or duke of older times).

Political and economic power is not the only dimension in the hierarchy ofinternational prestige. Another one is cultural achievements or culturalcontributions indicated by the number of famous scientists, writers, architec-tural monuments, etc. Citizenship or allegiance to a state not belonging to theleague of great powers does not necessarily doom one to feelings of infe-

riority: the basis for the feeling of belonging to the world elite can be theconviction of the extraordinary value of the culture of ones own nation orof its extraordinary contribution to world culture.

According to Weber, the persons most inclined to take pleasure in theprestige of power are those who are professionally involved in the ruling of thestate bureaucrats and military officers (Weber 1922 (1978): 911) whilemen of letters and intellectuals, who are specifically predestined to propagatethe national idea (Weber 1922 (1978): 926), are most concerned withcultural prestige. However, one can not speak about the nation in the We-berian sense where only the professions of war and writing (culture) take idealinterest in the prestige of power and culture. The nation exists where pridein the power or cultural achievements (in our days, in sports also) of ones

own nation transcends the internal class, status and, in many cases, ethnicdifferences.As was already noted, being sceptical about the possibility of a positive

theory of ethnicity and of nation, Weber does not inquire into the mechanismson which the appearance and disappearance of national feelings depend.Nevertheless, one can find some observations on these questions in his texts.Besides this, Webers idea of nation as a competitor for a place in theinternational hierarchy of prestige, doubtlessly has implications with regard tothe questions which a satisfactory explanatory theory of nations must answer.I will try to bring to light these implications.9

Weber emphasizes the special importance of collective memories aboutjointly fought wars (especially victorious ones) for the consolidation of thenation. If warfare is not a monopoly of some specific estate, but is a universal


10/31


10. Translation changed.11. Randall Collins points out and elaborates in detail this implication in his book (Collins 1986).

service, such memories become the basis for the consolidation of a political

memory community ( politische Erinnerungsgemeinschaft; Weber 1978(1922):322),10 which transcends inner class and estate differences. Thesecollective political memories are also capable of transcending ethnicdifferences. As an example, Weber points to the French nationalism of theGerman-speaking Alsatians, grounded in the common memory of the FrenchRevolution and the Napoleonic Wars shared with the French-speaking inha-bitants of France; he refers also to the phenomenon of the Swiss nation(Weber 1978 (1922): 395387).

On the other hand, Webers concept of the nation implies that the coherenceof national community depends on the success of the state with which thiscommunity identifies itself in the international contests of power and pres-tige.11 Recurrent and systematic failures in these contests, continuous nationalhumilations, affect national loyalty in the same way as the relegation of

their team to a lower league affects sports fans. When one stops believingthat these failures are temporary, a specific national identity is no more anobject of pride, but becomes more likely a stigma which one is not alwayscapable of discarding. The hopelessly losing team loses its fans, and its verymembers finally depart to other teams. A victorious state experiences thegreatest nationalism; an embattled one experiences nationalism to the extentthat it can draw upon memories of past victories that can probably be repeated.A long string of defeats saps national loyalty, and eventually, after timeperiods we have not yet measurred, national loyalty disappears (Collins 1986:155).

2. Webers Political-Economic Concept of the Nation

2.1. The Struggle for Elbow-Room as Human Condition

Because Weber in the concept of nation discussed in the previous sectionemphasizes the importance of statehood, political memories, and of mutualcompetition between the states for nation building and maintenance, it can becalled political-sociological. However, in Webers earlier writings one can alsodetect the outlines of a somewhat different concept of nation. It is formulatedin political-economic terms.

A characteristic document of this conception are Webers arguments in oneof his public lectures in 1897 delivered to an audience whose significant partwas composed of workers holding Marxist views:


11/31


12. Weber 1978 (1922): 357. The more accurate translation for Versorgungsgemeinschaftwouldbe community of economic maintenance. Webers typology of units of economic main-tenance includes household economy, extended household economy (oikos), city economy,and national economy (Volkswirtschaft).

The German workers today still have the choice to look for work in the homeland or abroad.However, in a short time this situation will end, whether or not the workers desire it. Then the worker

will be restricted to that vital space (Ernhrungsspielraum) which the capital and power of hishomeland is capable of creating. We do not know when this will occur, but it is true that this processis taking place. It is also true that the fierce struggle for power replaces the alleged peaceful progress.And in this fierce struggle the strongest will be victorious (Weber 1993c (1897): 851).

Weber does not appeal to the historical memories of the workers and doesnot talk about the incomparable superiority of German culture. He admits thatthe principle of Marxist catechism the worker has no homeland is cor-rect under certain conditions: where a free international labor market exists,and workers can migrate to where the demand for their labour power isstrongest. Such a situation existed as long as the free territories were therein the world, suitable for European agricultural colonization, and there wereopportunities for capitalist expansion into not yet captured markets. Under

these circumstances, laissez faire capitalism, acting under a more or lessopenly competitive regime in the world market, could flourish for a brief timein the 19th century. Weber believed that this intervening period of outwardlyfree competition (Weber 1993d (1897): 671) was coming to an end.

Already today we notice signs of economic changes which will destroy the dominance of freecompetition. Free competition is only a transitional stage on the road to a monopolistic era .When the market can no longer expand, the free market will be replaced by agreements in the guiseof syndicates, rings, cartels that is a peculiar form of guilds, which stand only one step above theguilds of the Middle Ages, which also liquidated free competition . With frightening speed weare approaching the time when the expansion of exports into the countries of the half civilizednations of Asia will end. Afterwards the control of foreign markets will depend solely on power,solely on naked force. Only philistines can doubt that(Weber 1993c (1897): 851).

After modern capitalism exhausts the opportunities of its external expan-

sion, the worlds economic space splits into economic organisms or nationaleconomies (Volkswirtschaft) circumscribed by the state borders. The massesof inhabitants, stuffed into these borders, are linked by an objective communityof economic interests. Every such unit of economic maintenance (Versorgungs-gemeinschaft)12 competes with others for the markets, sources of raw materials,and control of territories suitable for colonization and other resources. Weber(1994 (1895):16) refers to them metaphorically as elbow-room. Securing itsmonopolistic control over such elbow-room, a community can create orappropriate rent. In the next subsection, I will explain this concept: how it isdefined in the contemporary economic theory, used in theoretical sociologicalanalysis, and how it is present in Webers work.


12/31


Pm A

0

Marginal costB

Qc

Pc

Price

Quantity

Qm

C

Demand

2.2. The Concept of Rent

The best way to introduce into the concept of rent is by using as an examplethe case of a monopolist producers rent. The analytic model for this case isrepresented by Fig. 1, where y-axis is the price of some specific product, andx-axis is the quantity of this commodity sold. The inclined line represents thedemand. Point C represents the perfect competition equilibrium, where priceequals marginal cost. Under perfect competition, output and price will be Qcand Pc correspondingly. However, the monopolist is able to charge the pricePm. This will cause the decrease of quantity sold to Qmand the increase of hisrevenue equal to rectangle PmABPc. This increase in the income of theproducer over his revenue under the competitive price is the monopolist rent.The creation of rent causes not only the redistribution of welfare favouring themonopolist (PmABPc), but also the reduction in the welfare of society, repre-

sented by the triangle ABC.There is a great variety of rent-creating situations and forms of rent, withland rent being among the oldest subjects of economic analysis (see Tribe1978). In recent sociological theory, Aage B. Srensen (Srensen 1996; S-rensen 2000) considers the appropriately generalized concept of rent as theanalytical key to the theoretical account of the phenomena of social inequalityand class division. It is my suggestion that Weber in his early work used theconcept of rent to account for nations and nationalism on the intuitive level,and that Srensens analysis of class in terms of a generalized rent concept can

Figure 1. Rent and Rent-Seeking


13/31


be used to explicate those Weberian intuitions. Generally, rent is any

advantage or surplus created by nature or social structure over a certain periodof time (Srensen 1996: 1344). It occurs when the supply of the resourcecannot increase either for natural reasons (e.g., rents created by land), or bysocial constraints on production (e.g., rents created by licensing or distributionof patents). In late Webers terms, these constraints can be described asdifferent ways to close social relations (Weber 1978 (1922): 4346). The mostimportant distinguishing feature of rent is its independence from the efforts ofthe owner of rent-producing assets. In this respect, it differs from wages(payment for labor), interest (payment for past savings), and entrepreneurialprofit (payment for willingness to take risks of enterprise).

In his exhortations to German workers to support German expansionistpolicies, Weber assumes that rents can be created and appropriated not only byindividuals but also by communities as interest groups. If membership in a

community is ascriptive or nearly so, as early Weber so assumes (see section3 below) for nations, the accident of being born as a member of a greateconomically developed nation secures for a person an advantage over the restof human kind. This advantage arises because of better supply of public goods,opportunities of employment, the possibility to communicate in a mother-tongue as a lingua franca, and so on. However, this advantage is enjoyed bythe members of a nation (and their offspring) only as far as their nationpreserves its elevated status in the world division of labor, and controls theforeign markets. Under the conditions of competition for a share in the worldmarket, membership in the nation acquires a paramount importance for thelife chances of an individual in comparison with other memberships andidentities. Because of his Malthusian assumptions (see discussion below in this

section), Weber believed that this competition had a zero-sum game aspect, notproperly accounted for by the economic theories in his time. Now we nolonger have that technological optimism and belief in free-trade dogmas thatwe shared twenty-five years ago; that has gone for good. But this does not alterthe fact that this view did have a core of truth (Weber 1989 (1897): 212).

This core of truth consists, of course, in Ricardos famous theorem ofcomparative advantage in production costs. However, the comparativeadvantage is consistent with the existence of rent because the production costadvantages existing at some specific point of time are not, to the same degree,advantageous to all advantaged parties involved in the international divisionof labour. Both nations producing and exporting raw materials and nationsproducing and exporting high-tech production with high added-value, gainfrom mutual trade. But are these gains equal? Most importantly, many of these

advantages are not givens, but could be created by the economic policy of thenational state, which struggles, for example, to make natural resources fromoverseas accessible to its own industry at cheaper prices, or to promote the


14/31


development of branches of industry with high added-value. This policy of

preserving and creating comparative advantages in the international divisionof labour, which serves to secure rents for members of national units ofeconomic maintenance, Weber calls national economic policy or econom-ic nationalism. Alternatively (in the language of the new political economyof our days), these policies can be described as rent seeking or rent creat-ing. From this early Weberian political-economic perspective, nations can bedescribed for the most part as broad rent-creating and rent-seeking interestgroups.

2.3. Economic Nationalism as Rent-Seeking

On rent-seeking, abundant literature exists in the body of research work whichis alternatively called public choice theory or new political economy

(Krueger (1974), Tollison (1982), Tollison (1997), Rowley et al. (1988)). Thisliterature is about the activities of entrepreneurs and interest groups within theinstitutional framework of the single state. The authors focus their attention onthe famous suggestion by Gordon Tullock that in the process of rent-seeking,the rents themselves are dissipated because of the costs involved by rent-seeking activities. If this suggestion is true, then not only the triangle ABC butalso rectangle PmABPc must be described as welfare loss. According to theprevailing views, Tullocks suggestion is true under some, but not all condi-tions, with technical work on rent-seeking attempting to clarify respectiveconditions as closely as possible.

Evidently, the same question do rents for nations dissipate in the strugglefor them? can be asked about Webers economic nationalism or policies

pursuing the goal to secure or create comparative cost advantages for nations.However, in this article Id like to limit my task to the systematic reconstruc-tion of Webers ideas as they appear in his public statements from the earlyperiod of his work. In these statements, Weber repeatedly tries to persuade hisaudience that workers and capitalists (entrepreneurs) as members of the sameunit of economic maintenance, share an objective material interest toappropriate monopolistic rents accruing from the control of markets andsources of raw materials overseas. It is a vital matter for us that the broadmasses of our people should become aware that the expansion of Germanyspower is the only thing which can ensure for them a permanent livelihood athome and the possibility of progressive improvement (1993b (1896): 610).Weber admits that along with this common interest, capitalists and workershave the conflicting interest to appropriate as much as possible part of these

rents. However, where the workers are politically educated and thecapitalists are politically mature (for Weber, Great Britain was such anexample, see Weber 1994 (1895): 21), the struggle for the distribution of the


15/31


13. Adapted from Snooks (1993: 76). In both graphs, the x-axis represents combined inputlabor/capital. By the y-axis, the output (product) is represented. In the view of classical politicaleconomy, production is a process in which three factors of production are combined labour,capital, and land. Workers receive the part of the product, called wages; the owners of the capitaland the organizers of the production profit; and the owners of the land land rent. Thebetter the land controlled by the land owner, the larger the rent he receives. However, as thepopulation and the demand for food increases, land of ever poorer quality is cultivated, so the

rents grow. The MP line shows how the marginal product changes according to the law of dimi-nishing returns: the increase in the combined input capital/labour from Q1 towards Q2 will re-duce the marginal product of the input. The dotted line indicates the level of subsistence wages.

rents does not destroy the national unity essential for success in economic and

political competition with other nations.If we want to understand why Weber considered the fight of the nationalunits of economic maintenance for elbow-room inevitable, the most im-portant reference point is to note with what persistence the young Weberstressed the importance of demographic problem: Yet the sombre gravityof the population problem alone is enough to prevent us from being eudaemon-ists, from imaging that peace and happiness lie waiting in the womb of thefuture, and from believing that anything other than the hard struggle of manwith man can create any elbow-room in this earthly life. (Weber 1994 (1895):14). Weber affirms that the demographic problem is the oldest and most se-rious problem of social history and it is not worthwhile to have a scientific dis-cussion with anyone who does not recognize this (Weber 1993a (1894): 359).

One can understand these statements of Weber only in the sense that he

accepted the accuracy of the famous population law of Thomas RobertMalthus. As a matter of fact, Webers Malthusian assumptions have notreceived due consideration in the existing research work on Weber as political(or national) economist (Riesebrodt 1989 (1986); Tribe 1991 (1983); Tribe1995: 3294) The population law states that the power of human populationto grow if unhampered exceeds the growth potential of production (first of all,the production of food). The Malthuss law was an integral part of theclassical model of long-term economic dynamics. This model was well-knownin Webers times by the broader reading public due to its exposition in JohnStuart Mills Principles of Political Economy , which was still widely read atthe end of the 19th century. This model portrays certain natural limits ofeconomic growth. These limits were derived from Malthuss law under the

condition of the limited supply of one of the factors of production land (seee.g. Schumpeter 1994 (1954):677701; Tribe 1978: 117145).The classical model of limits of growth is represented by the Fig. 2, where

the left graph pictures the unstationary status of the economy (where growthis still possible), and the right the stationary one.13 This model implies the


16/31


Rent

Capital/labour

Product

Wage

Profit

I

Q1

S

Rent

Capital/labour

Product

MPWage

Q2

MP

S

Figure 2. The Classical Model of Growth and Distribution

so-called iron law of wages which affirms the characteristic tendency forwages to remain at the minimal level of biological subsistence. If for any rea-son wages exceed this level, then there is a corresponding increase in the birthrate (or a decrease in the death rate). When economy is in an unstationarystate, wages normally are above this level, so population grows. The workersspend their wages for their means of subsistence, and the rents are consumedunproductively by the landowners. The only source of investments necessaryfor economic growth in this model are profits. However, as capital and labourinput increases (Q moves to the right) and the margin of cultivation isextended, the surplus is increasingly redistributed on behalf of landowners. Theshare of profits in the product decreases, while wages are pressed by the

additional supply of labour to remain at the subsistence level. Thus theeconomy arrives at a stationary state, represented by point S in the right graph.Here profits are eliminated, and the total product is distributed between theworkers and the owners of the land, who appropriate all surplus. With profitseliminated, the economy ceases to grow. A catastrophic decrease of populationcan bring the economy out of this state, reducing for a while the pressure of thepopulation on resources and thus reopening the space for growth.

This classic model of long-term economic dynamics is the most importantassumption in Webers political-economic conception of nation and national-ism. The national unit of economic maintenance, which succeeds in mono-polizing the widest elbow-room (Weber had in mind the Great Britain of histime), collectively appropriates the rent which enables it to remove the per-spective of a stationary state, and to ensure for its workers a wage level which

is higher than the minimum level for subsistence implied by Malthuss law. Itis with this perspective that Weber tried to interest the social-democratically


17/31


14. Any international sports contest is a microcosm mimicking in miniature the political andeconomic competitive processes in the macrocosm of the world league of nations.

minded German workers, explaining to them Germanys fate in terms of the

struggle for a status of world power (Weltmacht) in the Malthusian world.We need more room externally, we need an extension of economic opportunities through theexpansion of our markets, it means the enlargement of external economic power space of Germany.A dozen ships on the East Asia coast are are at a certain moments of more value than a dozen tradeagreements which can be terminated (Weber 1993b (1896): 610).

In Webers perspective, nationalism is a specific form of collective egoism(or communitarianism). As an idea it means that members of the nationaleconomic maintenance unit and collective memory community have certainobligations of solidarity to other members of the same unit or community but not to the persons who belong to other communities of this kind in theleague of nations. These obligations can be compared with the obligationswhich members of a team have to other team members in a sports contest.14

Every player has the right to maximize his own benefit (be an individualist),as long as it does not conflict with the interests of team play. The team interestis to get and defend the highest possible place in the league. Part of the jointlywon glory (with glory, there is no distribution problem as, for example, whena team wins a monetary prize), belongs to every member of the winning team,but only provided that the team is the victorious one.

What reasons can be adduced in favour of the acceptance and observanceof these team play duties? Let us again look more closely into Webersrhetoric this time in his famous speech, The National State and EconomicPolicy (1895), that was aimed at a bourgeois audience.

Our successors will hold us answerable to history not primarily for the kind of economicorganisation we hand down to them, but for the amount of elbow-room in the world which we

conquer and bequeath to them (Weber 1994 (1895): 16). Certainly, only on the basis ofaltruism is any work in political economy possible. Overwhelmingly, what is produced by theeconomic, social and political endeavours of the present benefits future generations rather than thepresent one. If our work is to have any meaning, it lies, and can only lie, in providing for thefuture,for our descendants (Weber 1994 (1895): 14).

Weber assumes that he and his audience are people who are concerned notonly with their own happiness and welfare, but also with the opinion of theirdescendants about them. Even our highest, our ultimate ideals in this lifechange and pass away. It cannot be our ambition to impose them on the future.But we can want the future to recognise the character of its own ancestors inus. (Weber 1994 (1895): 13). Thus Weber assumes that his audience consists


18/31


of people who want to earn the gratitude and honor of their successors. For

them, Weber advises nationalistic policies as the best method to achieve thispurpose.

3. Webers Changing Concept of Nationalism

The Malthusian connection should be taken more fully into consideration inorder to put into the proper perspective those aspects of Webers early workwhich are accounted for in the recent research on Webers work as fallingunder the influence of Social Darwinism and Friedrich Nietzsche. In hisinvestigation of the dynamics of the migration processes in Germanys territoryeast of the Elbe, Weber referred to the anthropological or racial differences ofphysical and psychical nature between Germans and Poles as one of thereasons explaining these processes. With the development of industry in

Central and Western Germany, German agricultural workers, who wereemployed on the farms of landlords (Junkers), migrated to the West, and theirplaces were taken by immigrants from the parts of Poland belonging to Russia.Weber explained the success of the Poles by their more primitive anthropo-logical constitution, allowing them to withstand extreme (inhumane) con-ditions, which the culturally higher, but less sturdy (in the physical anthro-pological sense) German type, could not endure.

We can not allow two nationalities (Nationalitten) to compete totally freely in the same territoryif they have a different body constitution, and speaking absolutely concretely if their stomachsare constructed differently. Our workers can not compete with Polish workers. The needs of ourworkers would have to sink a whole level of culture lower. Similarly, our agricultural enterprise isnot competitive because it would have to slide down an entire level of culture in order to competewith agricultural enterprises of Russia, Argentina, and America. In national economies disorganized

by capitalism, situations occur when the higher culture is not superior, but weaker in the fight forexistence with a lower culture (Weber 1988 (1893): 457)

Weber considers his findings as evidence that the forces of natural selectiondo not always operate in favour of the higher anthropological and/or culturaltypes. The best or strongest are not necessarily those who are most fit inthe Darwinian sense (e.g., leave the most surviving offspring). This thesis isdistinctly Nietzschean, as compared with the Social Darwinists of Weberstimes, who identified most fit or strongest with most technologically orculturally advanced (Xenos 1993:129). In the following statement, Weberrefers to Social Darwinists as optimists among us: the free play of the forcesof selection does not always operate, as the optimists among us believe, infavour of the nationality which is economically the more highly developed or

better endowed (Weber 1994 (1895)).


19/31


20/31


17. See also the footnote 7.

natural or have been bred into it in the course of history (Weber 1994

(1895): 8). His casuistic deconstructive analysis inEconomy and Society canbe considered (at least in part) as a work in self-criticism. In a circular letterfor Freiburger colleagues, he qualifies his infamous Freiburg Inaugural lec-ture as immature and takes a stand against zoological nationalism (Weber1998 (1911): 356). The economic idea of nation was replaced with a moresubjectivist (conceived in the spirit of Webers interpretive sociology in themaking) idea of nation as the broadest status group struggling for a higherplace in the regional or world estate order of nations. In this struggle, economicand military power is not the only efficient ammunition.

It is nave to imagine that a people which is small in terms of numbers or power is any lessvaluable or important in the forum of world history. It simply has other tasks and thus othercultural possibilities. It is not only question of the simple civic virtues and the possibility of amore real democracy than is attainable in a great power state; it is also that the more intimate

personal values, eternal ones at that, can only flourish in the soil of a community which makes nopretensions to political power (Weber 1980 (1916):142).

This broader concept of nation provides Weber with a reference point bothfor his late self-identification of national anti-nationalist and for his viewsof what national anti-nationalism would mean in terms of practical policies.In his articles about Germanys aims in the First World War, Weber wassharply critical of his nationalist compatriots who militated for Germanysmaximal territorial gains. Webers idea of German national anti-nationalistpolicy was the containment of Russian imperialism by establishing onGermanys Eastern borders a number of states for the minority nations withinthe Russian state (e.g., Finns), with Germany as a guarantor of their nationalself-determination (Beetham 1985 (1974): 140142; Mommsen 1974 (1959):

222246). Generally, late Webers advice for his German compatriots on howto win the gratitude of their successors was to promote the prestige of Ger-man culture by using the power of the German state to protect the autonomyof smaller nations.

The important question, which cannot be answered in satisfactory waywithout going into the biographical details and inquiries about Webers ex-periences, reading and personal contacts while recovering from his break-down in 1897 and after, is that about the causes and reasons for the transfor-mation of Webers view on nations and nationalism. David Beetham considersWebers contacts with Russian emigrant liberal intellectuals in Heidelbergduring the time of Russian revolution (190506) as crucial influence. Heemphasizes the impression made on Weber by writings of Ukrainian politicalthinker Mykhailo Dragomanov (18411895) discussing national question inTsarist Russia (Beetham 1985 (1974): 129131)).17 However, Webers


21/31


experiences during his voyage to U.S. in 1904 could also be important, where

he could observe young vigorous nation, which evidently could not bedescribed as an (physical) anthropological or racial type shaped by longhistory. Instead of going into this question of historical interest, I willconcentrate in the conclusion on the contemporary relevance of Webers workon nations and nationalism. The comparison with the presently dominant viewsshould open the perspective where this relevance can be revealed.

4. Concluding Discussion: Comparisons, Evaluations, and Open Questions

4.1 Max Weber and Contemporary Theories of Nationalism

Research on nationalism and ethnicity is one of those specific fields of thesocial sciences which has attracted many investigators in the last decades. How

can Webers ideas on nations and nationalism be located in the context ofcurrent discussions on nationalism? Where lies their relevance for thesediscussions?

The researchers on ethnicity and nationalism are divided into perennial-ists (those considering ethnicity and nations as historically universal pheno-mena); modernists (according to them, nations are a modern phenomenon);primordialists (believing that ethnic and national identity are not forinstrumental choice); contextualists or instrumentalists, holding the oppos-ing view; culturalists (defining and explaining ethnicity and nationalism interms of culturalist social science), represented most impressively by the workof Liah Greenfeld (Greenfeld 1992, Greenfeld 2001); and naturalists (whochoose sociobiology as their point of departure). However, if we assess the

relative influence of present theories of nations and nationalism bibliometrical-ly, then the leader is the modernist and instrumentalist theory of nation-alism of Ernest Gellner (1983), Eric Hobsbawm (Hobsbawm and Ranger 1983,Hobsbawm 1990), and Benedict Anderson (1991 (1983)). These thinkers arethe best examples for comparison with Webers notions of nations andnationalism, and for assessing these notions remaining epistemic relevance.

Of course, there are important differences, how these mainstream thinkersconceive and explain nations and nationalism. For Hobsbawm, the mostimportant truth about nations is that most of them are products of socialengineering by elites which are coming into power or consolidating theirpower position. Doing engineering work, they invent and fabricate traditions,and falsify histories to foster the feeling of belonging to a nation as acommunity. For B. Anderson, the most important truth about this community

is its imagined character. According to his definition, nation is an imaginedcommunity and imagined as both inherently limited and sovereign(Anderson 1991 (1983): 6). The rise of this imagined community to its para-mount status was contingent on the invention of print which made mass


22/31


18. But see Armstrong (1982), Smith (1998), Smith (2000) et al.

literacy in vernacular languages viable. Print capitalism interests have also

created the periodical press as a new resource of political power to be usedboth by old established (official nationalism of naturalized dynasties)elites and by new creolic or native elites in colonial countries.

However, the most important version of this theory was advanced by ErnestGellner, who focuses on the structural change which made literacy invernacular a life necessity for the broader masses, and inculcated a national-ism, defined as a political principle, which holds that the political and thenational unit should be congruent (Gellner 1983: 1) with persuasive force.According to Gellner, this structural change was industrialization whichcreated a broad demand for a labour force endowed with a standardized basicknowledge of high culture provided by a modern-style education using ashared, standardized linguistic idiom (literary language as distinct frominnumerable local dialects).

According to Gellner, nations are created by nationalist movementsengendered by social situations where the same territory (political unit) isinhabited by different cultural groups which differ with respect to their accessto high culture or power. Gellner distinguishes 3 types of nationalism:Habsburg or Ruritanian, classical liberal, and diaspora nationalism.Gellner concentrates on the first type, because in his opinion this typesurpasses the others by its potential for outbreaks of collective violence. It isgenerated by situations where the political unit (Gellner refers to this unit asa pseudo-hypothetical imperial state of Megalomania its real prototypesbeing Habsburg monarchy and Tsarist Russia) is politically controlled by themembers of a cultural group with privileged access to high culture. Whereas,other cultural groups (constituting a numeric majority in some parts of

Megalomania, referred by Gellner to as Ruritania(s)), are excluded both frompower and high culture. A succesful nationalist movement, engendered by thistype of social situation, has to create both a separate high culture disseminatedby the educational system, and a separate political state. Solving the first task,nationalists (aspiring intelligentsia of the subordinate group, knowledgeable inthe supressors high culture but discriminated against because of ethnic origins)make broad use of opportunities provided by modern media (as described byB. Anderson) and techniques of fabricating traditions and falsification ofhistory (as described by Hobsbawm).

These ideas on nations and nationalism, which still predominate in the cur-rent discussion,18 have many evident affinities with Webers political-socio-logical approach. Although B. Anderson and Hobsbawm are Neo-Marxists inxxxxxxxxx


23/31


their theoretical predilections, and Gellner is Durkheimian or Parsonian

thinker, they all share with (late) Weber the basic idea of culturalist thinkingon nationalism that nationalism politicizes the culture by striving to establisha territorial political framework for people a with shared higher (literary)culture. However, elements of naturalism abound in Webers early views onnation, where a political-economic approach is blended with anthropologicaland racial assumptions.

Webers early political-economic concept of nation is modernist too.However, differently from Gellner, Weber relates the rise of nations andnationalism not to industrialization, but to the formation of the world marketand the globalization of the fight for elbow-room. According to early Weber,a nation is the most effective form of political and cultural consolidation fora unit of economic maintenance participating in this struggle. With the racialand Nietzschean elements suspended, this idea of nation is most reminiscent

of the view of nation in the World-System theory of Immanuel Wallerstein,who considers nation as the optimal form of organization for those units ofeconomic activity and interest which belong to the core of the world system orstrive to empower themselves in the struggle for a more central position(Balibar and Wallerstein 1991 (1988)).

Webers political-sociological concept of the nation does not fit neatly intothe frame of the dichotomy of modernism and perennialism. Weber wouldagree that the phenomenon of the nation is more characteristic for moderntimes than for premodernity. However, he does not consider this phenomenonas specifically modern. Nations can be formed everywhere where there existstates competing for the prestige of power and culture, and involving in thesecontests broad masses of their dependents or citizens.

4.2 Webers Contemporary Relevance I: Weber contra Gellner

However, the most important differences between currently prevalent ideas ofB. Anderson, Gellner, and Hobsbawm and those of Weber are elsewhere.Gellner and other modernists are most interested in the causes for theappearance ofnew nations in the world. Weber was more interested in thepreconditions for the success of already existing (old) nations in the interna-tional contest for economic power, political power, and prestige. The neglectof the problem ofnation-building of the new nations can be considered asone of the main shortcomings of Webers conception, which was shaped by hislimited experience of the world as it was before World War I. In his earlywork, Weber raises and discusses the problems of nations and nationalism as

a member of one of the great nations fighting for world hegemony. The eco-nomic nationalism of his early work was the imperialistic and great powernationalism of the great nations.


24/31


19. So I am taking the freedom to extend the reference of Gellners Megalomania, including intoits scope all great nations.

The B. Anderson-Gellner-Hobsbawm modernist theory of nations and

nationalism reflects another experience, that of the time after the First andSecond World Wars, when many new (and small) nations, with their usuallyethnic nationalism, joined the world league of nations. If one describes thestate of the art in contemporary modernist theories of nationalism with Gell-ners own pseudohypothetical vocabulary, then these theories are centered onthe ruritanian nations and nationalism, while Weber was more concernedwith megalomaniac (imperialistic and hegemonist) nations and their nation-alism.19 However, there is no sufficient reason to regard these differences inproblems and conceptual optics to Webers disadvantage as an evidencethat Webers ideas are no more relevant in the changed (postimperialistic)world.

On the contrary, these differences enable one to notice one constitutionaldefect in the prevailing contemporary theories of nationalism, which can be

called ruritaniacentrism. This peculiarity of prevailing theory is inherent inthe famous definition of nationalism by Gellner as a political principle, whichholds that the political and the national unit should be congruent (Gellner1983: 1). If this definition is accepted, then one has to assert that policies goingbeyond the goal to unify a nation in one state (e.g. striving to enhance theeconomic power and prestige of a nation state relative to its rivals in the worldleague of nations, not to speak about colonialist and neocolonialist policies)do not have anything to do with nationalism. If we accept this definition, wehave to maintain that nationalism cannot exist in a nation which has anindependent state and no territorial claims to his neighbours. Characteristically,the author of one of the recent modernist works on nationalism stipulates thatin the cases where boundaries of the nation and governance unit are already

congruent, there is no nationalism, but patriotism (Hechter 2000: 17).In this way, American, French or other nationalisms of great nations areruled out of reality by a feat of definition, and the concepts of nation andnationalism are turned into conceptual tools, which are relevant only to explainhappenings in all kinds of new Ruritanias (in the Balkans) to be lookedupon with enormous condescension. For my part, I find this procedure quitearbitrary. A look at Webers megalomaniacentric thoughts on nations andnationalism helps one to understand the necessity of a broader theory ofnations and nationalism, which includes both the ruritanian and megaloma-niac (imperialistic, hegemonistic, or expansionistic) nationalisms.


25/31


4.3. Webers Contemporary Relevance II: Is There Rent-Seeking in

International Relations?One has to admit that most of Webers purely economic assumptions in hispolitical-economic analysis of the global development, are inadequate,reflecting the state of art in 19th century economic theory. Looking retrospec-tively, the classic model of the limits of growth represents the real state ofpreindustrial society. Members of industrialized societies live in a world whichdiffers from the Malthusian world (see North 1981: 1319, 158160, 171174), North and Thomas 1970). The systematic technologic application ofscientific knowledge makes possible so-called intensive economic growth,which allows for ever more efficient use of natural resources, and for the sub-stitution of exhausted and therefore too expensive resources by others.

However, Webers insight that power struggle among nations can be

considered as rent-creating and rent-seeking activities has a heuristic potentialwhich remains unused in the recent research. The concept of rent-seeking iscurrently applied in new political economy (also called public choicetheory) only to explain political processes within an institutional frameworkof separate states. On this scale, the phenomenon of ethnic rent-seeking wasinvestigated (e.g. Congleton 1995). This work has some affinities to earlyWebers idea on nation and nationalisms, albeit they are not pinpointed by theauthors writing on the ethnic rent-seeking.

In its applications within the realm of the theory of international relations,public choice theory usually considers national states as clubs, providing publicgoods for their members for membership fees (taxes) and competing for mobilefactors of production (Frey 1984, Sinn 1992). At the same time, this competi-tion compels the governements to lower the costs of production of public goods

and works in order to contain their own Leviathan tendencies. In thisframework, nationalism can be considered as a residual variable influencingthe order of preference of the members of these clubs between voice andexit as ways to protest against the decline in the governments performance(Hirschman 1970). Because of their preference to live in some specific location(affection for motherland), nationalists are more ready to allow theirgovernments to overtax them. If they protest, the voice is their preferred pro-test strategy. The theory predicts that the owners of mobile factors ofproduction are less susceptible to nationalism in comparison with those whoown immobile factors or have greater exit costs.

It is a difficult question, demanding further research, how Webers sug-gestion about the rents created by the economic nationalist policies of build-ing and preserving comparative advantages in the international division oflabour, can be integrated into this framework or help to expand it. In the con-temporary world, there are no more colonial empires and spheres of influence,


26/31


which spurred Weber to write that a dozen ships on the East Asia coast are at

certain moments of more value than a dozen trade agreements which can beterminated (Weber 1993b (1896): 610). Contrary to Webers apprehensions,the international regime of free trade is on the march. However, as interna-tional organizations multiply and supranational political units (like the Euro-pean Union) are under construction, an institutional framework arises whereartificial monopolies can be created, and new possibilities of rent-seekingactivities by nations are opened.

I predict that these new possibilities of rent-seeking will foster the vitalityand virulence of nationalism in the old nations. The situation is notdissimilar to the rise of regionalism and ethnic rent-seeking as a consequenceof the development of the welfare state. Webers early idea of economicnationalism encourages us to ask how the concept of rent-seeking can beuseful for the explanation of competition between nations in this new insti-

tutional environment.

References

Ammon, Otto1900 Die Gesellschaftsordnung und ihre natrliche Grundlagen. Entwurf einer Sozial-(1895) Anthropologie zum Gebrauch fr alle Gebildeten, die sich mit sozialen Fragen befassen .

3. umg. Aufl. Jena: Gustav Fischer.

Anderson, Benedict1991 Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism . Rev.(1983) edition. London, N.Y.: Verso.

Anderson, Perry1992 Zone of Engagement. London: Verso.

Anter, Andreas1995 Max Webers Theorie des modernen Staates. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot.

Armstrong, John1982 Nations before Nationalism. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.

Aron, Raymond1991 Max Weber und die Machtpolitik. In Hamilton, Peter (ed.) Max Weber. Critical

Assessments (2), London: Routledge, Vol. 1, p. 2439.

Balibar, Etienne and Wallerstein, Immanuel1991 Race, Nation, Class : Ambiguous Identities . London: Verso.(1988)

Beetham, David1985 Max Weber and the Theory of Modern Politics. Oxford: Polity.(1974)

Bodemann, Y. Michal1993 Priests, Prophets, Jews, and Germans. The Political Basis of M. Webers Conceptionsof Ethno-National Solidarities. Europisches Archiv fr Soziologie, 34(2): 224250.


27/31


Brunner, Otto.1968 Das ganze Haus und die alteuropische konomik, in hisNeue Wege der Ver-

(1956) fassungs- und Sozialgeschichte. 2. verm. Aufl. Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,S. 103127.

Collins, Randall1986 Weberian Sociological Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.

Colliot-Thlne, Catherine.1990 Max Weber, la leon inaugurale de 1895, ou: Du nationalisme la sociologie

comparative.Les cahiers de Fontenay,5859:10321.

Congleton, Roger D.1995 Ethnic Clubs, Ethnic Conflict, and the Rise of Ethnic Nationalism. In Breton, Albert

et al. (eds)Nationalism and Rationality. Cambridge: Cambridge UP

Frey, Bruno S.1984 The Public Choice View of International Political Economy.International Organiza-

tion, 38(1): 199223.

Gellner, Ernest

1983 Nations and Nationalism. Ithaca: Cornell UP.

Gellner, Ernest1994 Encounters with Nationalism. Oxford: Blackwell.

Green, Bryan S.1988 Literary Methods and Sociological Theory.Case Studies of Simmel and Weber. Chicago:

Chicago UP.

Greenfeld, Liah1992 Nationalism: Five Roads to Modernity . Cambridge (Mass.): Harvard UP.2001 The Spirit of Capitalism: Nationalism and Economic Growth. Cambridge (Mass.):

Harvard UP.

Guibernau, Montserrat and Rex, John (eds)1997 The Ethnicity Reader. Nationalism, Multiculturalism and Migration. Oxford: Polity

Press.

Hechter, Michael2000 Containing Nationalism. Oxford: Oxford UP.

Hennis, Wilhelm1987 Max Webers Fragestellung. Studien zur Biographie des Werkes . Tbingen: J. C. B. Mohr

(Paul Siebeck).1996 Max Webers Wissenschaft vom Menschen. Neue Studien zur Biographie des Werks.

Tbingen: J. C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck).

Hirschman, Albert O.1970 Exit, Voice, and Loyalty. Cambridge (Mass.): Harvard UP.

Hobsbawm, Eric1990 Nations and Nationalism since 1780. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.

Hobsbawm, Eric and Ranger Terence (eds)1983 The Invention of Tradition. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.

Hutchinson, John and Smith, Anthony D. (eds)1994 Nationalism. Oxford: Oxford UP.

Hutchinson, John and Smith, Anthony D.(eds)1996 Ethnicity, Oxford; Oxford UP.


28/31


Jackson, Maurice1991 An Analysis of Max Webers Theory of Ethnicity. In Hamilton P.(ed.)Max Weber.

(1982/ Critical Assessments (2). London: Routledge, 1991, Vol. 2, pp. 283294.83)

Krueger, Anne O.1974 The Political Economy of the Rent-Seeking Society. American Economic Review,

Vol. 54(3), p. 291303.

Lange, Friedrich A.(1865) Die Arbeiterfrage in ihrer Bedeutung fr Gegenwart und Zukunft. Duisburg: Falk &

Volmer.

Mannesse, Ernst M.1947 Max Weber on Race. Social Research, 14(2): 191221.

Mitzman, Arthur1970 The Iron Cage. An Historical Interpretation of Max Weber. N.Y.: Knopf.

Mill, John Stuart1991 Principles of Political Economy, in his Collected Works, Vols 2 and 3, London: Rout-(1848) ledge.

Mommsen, Wolfgang J.1974 Max Weber und die deutsche Politik, 18901920. 2. berarb. und erw. Aufl. Tbingen:(1959) J.C.B.Mohr (Paul Siebeck).

North, Douglass C.1981 Structure and Change in Economic History. N. Y.: W.W. Norton.

North, Douglass C. and Thomas, Robert P.1970 An Economic Theory of the Growth of the Western World. The Economic History

Review. 2nd Series, Vol. 23 (1): 117.

Oldroy, David R.1984 How Did Darwin Arrive at His Theory? The Secondary Literature to 1982.History of

Science, 22 (4):325374.

Palonen, Kari1998 Das Webersche Moment: Zur Kontingenz des Politischen . Wiesbaden: Westdeutscher

Verlag.1999 Max Webers Reconceptualization of Freedom. Political Theory, 27 (4):523544.2001 Was Max Weber a Nationalist? A Study in the Rhetoric of Conceptual Change.Max

Weber Studies, 1 (2):196213.2002 Begriffsgeschichte und/als Politikwissenschaft, Archiv fr Begriffsgeschichte 44:

221234.

Periwal, Sukumar (ed.)1995 Notions of Nationalism. Budapest: CEU Press.

Riesebrodt, Martin1989 From Patriarchalism to Capitalism: The Theoretical Context of Max Webers Agrarian(1986) Studies. In Tribe, Keith (ed.)Reading Weber, London: Routledge, p. 476502.

Rowley, Charles K; Tollison, Robert D., and Tullock, Gordon (eds.)1988 The Political Economy of Rent-Seeking, Boston: Kluwer.

Scaff, Lawrence A.

1989 Fleeing the Iron Cage. Culture, Politics and Modernity in the Thought of Max Weber.Berkeley: University of California UP.


29/31


Schumpeter, Joseph Alois1994(1954)History of Economic Analysis, London: Routledge.

Sinn, Stefan.1992 The Taming of Leviathan. Competition Among Governments.Constitutional Political

Economy, 3(2): 177196.

Smith, Anthony.1998 Nationalism and Modernism: A Critical Survey of Recent Theories of Nations and

Nationalism. London: Routledge.2000 The Nation in History: Historiographical Debates About Ethnicity and Nationalism.

Hanover: Brandeis UP.

Snooks, Graeme D.1993 Economics Without Time. A Science Blind to the Forces of Historical Change .

Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1993.

Srensen, Aage B.1996 The Structural Basis of Social Inequality. American Journal of Sociology, 101(5):

13331365.

2000 Toward a Sounder Basis for Class Analysis.American Journal of Sociology, 105(6):15231558.

Tollison, Robert D.1982 Rent Seeking: A Survey. Kyklos, 1982, 35 (4): 575602.1997 Rent Seeking. In Mueller, Dennis C. (ed.) Perspectives on Public Choice: A

Handbook, Cambridge: Cambridge UP, p. 506525.

Tribe, Keith1978 Land, Labour and Economic Discourse , London: Routledge.1991 Prussian Agriculture German Politics: Max Weber 18927. In Hamilton P.(ed.)Max(1983) Weber. Critical Assessments (1), Vol. 3. London: Routledge, p. 206244.1995 Strategies of Economic Order. German Economic Discourse, 17501950. Cambridge:

Cambridge UP.

Tullock, Gordon1993 The Welfare Costs of Tariffs, Monopolies, and Theft. In Rowley, Charles K. Public

(1967) Choice Theory, Vol.2. The Characteristics of Political Equilibrium. Aldershot: EdwardElgar, p. 311.

Weber, Max1892 Die Verhltnisse der Landarbeiter im ostelbischen Deutschland. Leipzig: Duncker &

Humblot.1978 Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology, 2 vols. Ed. Guenther Roth(1922) and Claus Wittich, Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.1980 Zwischen zwei Gesetzen. In Gesammelte Politische Schriften. Hrsg. Winckelmann,(1916) Johannes. 4. Aufl. Tbingen: J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), S. 142145.1988 Die lndliche Arbeitsverfassung. InGesammelte Aufstze zur Sozial- und Wirtschafts-(1893) geschichte. Hrsg. Weber, Marianne.2. Aufl. Tbingen: J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck),

pp. 444469.1993a Rezension von:Was heisst Christlich-Sozial? Gesammelte Aufstze von FriedrichNau-(1894) mann. In Gesamtausgabe. Abteilung I: Schriften und Reden.Bd. 4. Landarbeiterfrage,

Nationalstaat und Volkswirtschaftspolitik. Schriften und Reden 18921899. Hrsg.

Mommsen, Wolfgang J., Aldenhoff, Rita. Tbingen: J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck),S. 346361.


30/31


1993b Diskussionsbeitrag zum Vortrag von Hans Delbrck Die Arbeitslosogkeit und das(1896) Recht auf Arbeit. In Gesamtausgabe. Abteilung I: Schriften und Reden. Bd. 4.

Landarbeiterfrage, Nationalstaat und Volkswirtschaftspolitik. Schriften und Reden18921899. Hrsg. Mommsen W.J., Aldenhoff, Rita. Tbingen: J.C.B. Mohr (PaulSiebeck), S. 609611.

1993b Der Gang der wirtschaftlichen Entwicklung. In Gesamtausgabe. Abteilung I: Schriften(1897) und Reden. Bd. 4. Landarbeiterfrage, Nationalstaat und Volkswirtschaftspolitik.

Schriften und Reden 18921899. Hrsg. Mommsen Wolfgang J., Aldenhoff, Rita.Tbingen: J.C.B.Mohr (Paul Siebeck), S. 842852.

1993d [Stellungnahme zu der von der Allgemeinen Zeitung im Dezember 1897 veranstalteten(1897) Flottenumfrage]. In Gesamtausgabe. Abteilung I: Schriften und Reden. Bd. 4.

Landarbeiterfrage, Nationalstaat und Volkswirtschaftspolitik. Schriften und Reden18921899. Hrsg. Mommsen Wolfgang.J., Aldenhoff, Rita. Tbingen: J.C.B.Mohr (PaulSiebeck), S. 667673.

1994 The Nation State and Economic Policy. In Political Writings. Ed. by Lassman, Peter(1895) and Speirs, Ronald. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, p. 128.1996 Zur Lage der brgerlichen Demokratie in Russland. In Gesamtausgabe. Abteilung I:

(1906) Schriften und Reden. Bd. 10.Zur russischen Revolution von 1905: Schriften und Reden19051912. Hrsg. Mommsen Wolfgang J., Dahlmann, Dittmar. Tbingen: J.C.B.Mohr(Paul Siebeck), S. 1104.

1998 Freiburger Kollegen, Brief 15.11.1911, in his Gesamtausgabe. Abteilung II: Briefe(1911) 19111912. Hrsg. Lepsius, Rainer R. M. und Mommsen Wolfgang J. in Zusammenar-

beit mit Rudhard, Birgit und Schn, Manfred. Tbingen: J.C.B.Mohr (Paul Siebeck),S. 352357.

1924 Diskussionsrede zum Vortrag von P. Barth Die Nationalitt in ihrer soziologischer(1912) Bedeutung auf dem zweiten Deutschen Soziologentag in Berlin 1912, Max Weber,

Gesammelte Aufstze zur Soziologie und Sozialpolitik, Tbingen: J.C.B. Mohr (PaulSiebeck), S. 484486.

1982 Der Sinn der Wertfreiheit der soziologischen und konomischen Wissenschaften.(1917) In Gesammelte Aufstze zur Wissenschaftslehre, 5. Aufl. Hrsg. Winckelmann, Johannes.

Tbingen: J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), S. 489540.1989 Germany as an Industrial State, inReading Weber. Ed. by Tribe K. London: Routledge,

(1897) p. 210220.1991a Deutschlands politische Neuorientierung. In Gesamtausgabe. Abteilung I: Schriften(1918) und Reden. Bd. 16.Zur Neuordnung Deutschlands: Schriften und Reden 19181920 .

Hrsg. Mommsen Wolfgang J., Schwentker, Wolfgang . Tbingen: J.C.B. Mohr (PaulSiebeck), S. 113115.

1991b Das neue Deutschland, in his Gesamtausgabe. Abteilung I: Schriften und Reden. Bd.(1918) 16.Zur Neuordnung Deutschlands: Schriften und Reden 19181920 . Hrsg. Mommsen

Wolfgang J., Schwentker, Wolfgang . Tbingen: J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck),S. 118122.

Xenos, Nicholas1993 Nation, State and Economy: Max Webers Freiburg Inaugural Lecture. In Ringrose,

Marjorie and Lerner, Adam J. (eds.) Reimagining the Nation, Buckingham: OpenUniversity Press, pp. 125138.


31/31

48674344 max weber on naitons and nationalism

Documents