criticisms of weber thesis.txt

7/27/2019 Criticisms of Weber Thesis.txt

1/6

Sandra Pierotti

The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism: Criticisms of Weber's Thesis

Max Weber's theory of the part which Protestantism, specifically Calvinism,played in the development of a spirit of capitalism in western Europe has had aprofound effect on the thinking of sociologists and historians since itspublication in 1904. Many historians value its application of social theory tohistorical events and praise it for its attempt to explain why capitalismthrived in Europe and subsequently the United States and not as much in otherplaces. Immanuel Wallerstein, for instance, drew heavily on Weber forexplanations of the growth of capitalism into the modern economic world-systemin his classic three volume work, The Modern World-System.The criticisms of Weber's hypothesis have helped keep his ideas at the forefront

of social theory. The repercussions have echoed throughout the academic worldfor almost 100 years and continue today. This paper will take a look at some ofthe criticisms of Weber's capitalism/protestantism theory from various points ofview. I cannot begin to cover all of Weber's critics in the course of thispaper, but I will present some representative criticisms of the theory.Weber hypothesized that capitalism was a product of the western mind for anumber of reasons, not the least of which was the Protestant Ethic. TheProtestant Ethic spawned and encouraged what Weber called the "spirit ofcapitalism." By Weber's definition, this is more than simply capitalistactivity. It is, in fact, the essence which underlies the economic system.During the long 16th century, this spirit became embodied in European societyand provided the impetus for capitalism to emerge as the dominant economic

system in the world.For Weber, capitalism was more than simply an accumulation of wealth. It had inroots in rationality. In fact, Weber insisted that capitalism was the triumph ofrationality over tradition. Explicit in his view of capitalism were adisciplined labor force and the regularized investment of capital. Weberasserted that this combination took place only in Europe and most strongly inProtestant nations, such as England, Holland, and Germany, where there wereinfluential groups of ascetic Protestant sects.Weber was influenced by the writings of Benjamin Franklin, in which he saw earlyindications of the spirit of capitalism before there was a capitalistic order in

the American colonies. Weber quoted Franklin early in his work and based many ofthis ideas on Franklin's writings:For six pounds a year you may have the use of one hundred pounds, provided youare a man of known prudence and honesty.He that spend a groat a day, spends idly above six pounds a year, which is theprice for the use of one hundred pounds.He that wastes idly a groat's worth of his time per day, one day with another,wastes the privilege of using one hundred pounds each day.He that idly uses five shillings worth of time, loses five shillings, and might


2/6

as prudently throw five shillings into the sea.He that loses five shillings, not only loses that sum, but all the advantagesthat might be made by turning it in dealing, which by the time that a young manbecomes old, will amount of a considerable amount of money. Weber then said,"Truly what is here preached is not simply a means of making one's way in theworld, but a particular ethic... It is not mere business astuteness, that sortof thing is common enough, it is an ethos." He continues, "The earning of moneywithin the modern economic order is, so long as it is done legally, the resultand the expression of virtue and proficiency in a calling; and this virtue andproficiency are, as it is now not difficult to see, the real Alpha and Omega ofFranklin's ethic."One of the criticisms of Weber is that he misunderstood what Franklin wassaying. In their article, "In Search of the Spirit of Capitalism: Weber'sMisinterpre tation of Franklin," Tony Dickson and Hugh McLachlan disagree withWeber that Franklin was talking about an ethic in the selection quoted above."Far from demonstrating a commitment to the 'spirit of capitalism,' and theaccumulation of wealth as an end in itself and moral duty, Franklin's writingsare in fact evidence against the existence of such a spirit." Dickson andMcLachlan point out that the title of the work from which Weber quoted is"Necessary Hints to Those That Would Be Rich." They assert, "This suggests thatwhat Franklin is offering is prudential advice, rather than insisting on a moralimperative." The gist of Dickson's and McLachlan's argument is that Webermisinterpreted Franklin's writings as moral ends when they were simply virtues

to be practiced because of the benefits they will bring to those who practicethem. They deny that Franklin was preaching a Protestant work ethic and assertthat all Franklin was saying was that if a person is interested in beingsuccessful in life and commerce, here are some virtues to follow.Dickson and McLachlan conclude with a clear statement of their criticism ofWeber's hypothesis:It seems clear to us that Weber misinterprets Franklin and that the latter wasnot imbued with the ethos which Weber attributes to him. It is not in disputethat a methodological lifestyle is conducive to the accumulation of wealth. Whatis at issue concerning Weber's Protestant Ethic thesis is the impetus for such alifestyle. Weber's misinterpretation of Franklin does not in itself invalidate

his methodol ogy or his Protestant Ethic thesis. Nonetheless, it does suggest arather cavalier attitude towards evidence, particularly as the writings ofFranklin are the only 'evidence' that he presents in his original essays todemonstrate the existence of the 'spirit of capitalism'.Most of the other criticisms of Weber rest on his assertion that moderncapitalism could not have flourished in Europe without an ethic or spirit whichhad its roots in ascetic Protestantism. These criticisms themselves fall intotwo major categories: (1) that capitalism was a growing force before theReformation and that it would have thrived as well under Catholicism as underProtestantism and (2) that the driving force behind capitalism was not ascetismbut rationality.H. M. Robertson, a historian at the University of Cape Town, asserted in "ACriticism of Max Weber and His School" that the Roman Catholic Church and the

Protestant Churches stressed the same precepts in the 16th and 17th centuries.He states that Weber's assertion that the concept of the "calling" was novel toLuther and Protestantism was not established in Weber's writings. Robertsonsupports his thesis by quoting Aquinas: "There seems to be no essentialdifference between the doctrine of the Catholics and the Puritans on this point[the calling]. St. Thomas Aquinas' teaching on distributive justice was that:This . . . division of men in different occupations occurs in the first placethrough divine providence, which distributes the condition of men in such a way. . . and also in the second place from natural causes, as a result of which ithappens that there are different aptitudes for different occupations amongst


3/6

different men." Robertson continues in support of his thesis: "The Jansenists .. . reminded their flocks that the Christian life was 'a serious life, a life oftoil and not of diversion, play or pleasure' so that one ought never to forgetthat it 'should be filled with some useful and sober occupation suitable forone's state of existence.' The Jesuits stressed almost the same beliefs. InFrance the Church went out of its way to welcome the honest bourgeois on theground that he was the only type of man who followed God's commands and lived ina 'calling'."Amintore Fanfani, an economic historian in Rome, shared Robertson criticism ofWeber but from a different aspect. In his article "Catholicism, Protestantism,and Capitalism," Fanfani disagrees with Weber concerning the role thatProtestant ism played in the development of a capitalist spirit in Europe. Inthe first paragraph, he states his argument:Our investigations have led us to the conclusion . . . that Europe wasacquainted with capitalism before the Protestant revolt. For at least a centurycapitalism had been an ever growing collective force. Not only isolatedindividuals, but whole social groups, inspired with the new spirit, struggledwith a society that was not yet permeated with it. Once we have ruled out thatProtestantism could have produced a phenomenon that already existed, it stillremains for us to enquire whether capitalism was encouraged or opposed byProtestantism.Fanfani goes on to argue that it was not the Protestant Ethic which encouraged

the growth of capitalism but the fact that many Protestants were forced to leaveCatholic countries to escape persecution which "fosters in the emigrants aninternationalism that is no small element in capitalist mentality." In fact, hesays that many early Protestant leaders opposed capitalism, including Luther andCalvin: "Luther's conservatism in economic matters, to which his patriarchalideas on trade and his decided aversion to interest bear witness. Even Calvin .. . condemns as unlawful all gain obtained at a neighbor's expense, and theamassing of wealth." The Huguenots and Dutch Reformers also preached againstvarious aspects of capitalism: ". . . through the sixteenth and seventeenthcenturies we find a continual repetition of the prohibitions of usury issued bythe synods of the Huguenots and by those of the Dutch Reformers, whose ethical

code also condemned even excessive labour, as robbing time and energy from theservice of God, and held action born of desire for gain to be a sign ofmadness."Fanfani agrees with Weber that capitalism flourished after the Reformation, buthe parts ways with Weber as to the causes. Fanfani argues that capitalism as weknow it today was born in the Italian merchant states under the religiousumbrella of Catholicism, but he discounts the effect that religion of any kindhad on the growth of capitalism as the major world economic system. He concludeshis article by stating, "The creation of a new mentality in the economic fieldcannot therefore be considered as the work of Protestantism, or rather of anyone religion, but it is a manifestation of that general revolution of thoughtthat characterizes the period of the Renaissance and the Reformation, by which

in art, philosophy, morals, and economy, the individual emancipates . . .himself from the bonds imposed on him during the Middle Ages."Malcolm H. MacKinnon, bases his disagreements with Weber on the idea that Webermisinterpreted what the Calvinists were saying about the concept of the callingand good works. He states early on in his article,There are two fundamental theological flaws in Weber's line of reasoning, flawsthat mean that Calvinism did not give a divine stamp of approval to earthlytoil: (1) There is no crisis of proof in the Westminster Confession of Faith,the dogmatic culmination of seventeenth-century Calvinism upon which Weber soheavily relies, and (2) in Christianity generally and Calvinism in particular,


4/6

works have nothing to do with mundane activities. As soteriologically conceivedin relation to salvation, works are spiritual activities that call for obedienceto the Law. MacKinnon goes on to explain that Weber's major failure is hismisunderstanding of the Calvinist meaning of the calling. Using the WestminsterConfession as his primary source, MacKinnon explains what the term "calling"meant to the Calvinists:There is a heavenly calling and an earthly calling or callings, the latterdisqualified from making a positive contribution to our deliver ance. . . Aboveall else, the devout must ensure that their mundane callings in no way impedethe prosecution of the greatest good of all: their heavenly calling. Believersare sanctioned to "choose that employment or calling in which you may be mostserviceable to God. Choose not that in which you may be most honorable in theworld; but that which you may do most good and best escape sinning."MacKinnon concludes by stating that it was Weber's misfortune to choose part ofthe Calvinist philosophy which, upon close examination, not only fails tosupport Weber's thesis but in fact undermines it. "Again, the significant pointhere is that temporal obligations are at best indifferent and at worst sinful;they cannot make a contribution to the realization of celestial paradise. It isa grim twist of irony that Weber would choose such a spiritually worthlessvehicle to realize his causal ambitions."R. H. Tawney, Weber's most famous critic, agreed with Weber that capitalism andProtestantism were connected. However, Tawney saw the connection going in theopposite direction from that which Weber postulated. Tawney, in his 1926 work,

Religion and the Rise of Capitalism, states that Protestantism adopted therisk-taking, profit-making ethic of capitalism, not the other way around. Tawneyclaims, with some good measure:There was plenty of capitalist spirit in fifteenth century Venice and Florence,or in south Germany and Flanders, for the simple reason that these areas werethe greatest commercial and financial centers of the age. The development ofcapitalism in Holland and England in the sixteenth and seventeenth centurieswere due, not to the fact that they were Protestant powers but to large economicmovements, in particular the Discoveries and the results which flowed fromthem."The strongest connection that Tawney saw between capitalism and Protestantism

was rationality. Protestantism was a revolt against traditionalism and as suchadvocated rationality as an approach to life and business. Tawney proposed thatthe rationality inherent in capitalism became a tenet of Protestantism becauserationality was diametrically opposed to the traditionalism of Catholicism.Early Protestant leaders recognized that hard work and rational organization oftime were capitalist virtues which fit very nicely into the concept of livingone's life in the service of God. Tawney saw the capitalist concepts of divisionof labor and planned accumulation as being reflected in the dogma ofProtestantism which urged its followers to use one's calling on earth for thegreater glory of God. According to Tawney, capitalist precepts and Protestantdogma fit hand in glove.As an historian, Tawney did not see a linear relationship between capitalism and

Protestantism. He thought that Weber's thesis a little too simplistic to explainhistorical events. History tends to be non-linear, and attempts to draw straightcasual lines between events are shaky at best. As Tawney put it, "The Protestantethic, with its insistence on hard work, thrift, etc., had contributed to therise of capitalism, but at the same time Protestantism itself was beinginfluenced by an increasingly capitalistic society."


5/6

The last critic I will cite in this paper is an economic historian, Jacob Viner,who used pre-eighteenth century Scotland as a case study to demonstrate thatwhere Calvinism was a state religion, it tended to have a restraining ratherthan a freeing effect on economic development. He quotes a letter from JohnKeats in support of his thesis:. . . the ecclesiastical supervision of the life of the individual, which, as itwas practised in the Calvinistic State Churches almost amounted to aninquisition, might even retard that liberation of individual powers which wasconditioned by the rational ascetic pursuit of salvation, and in some casesactually did so.Viner points out that until well into the eighteenth century, Scotland was adesperately poor country. Contemporary commentators often remarked on the lackof economic initiative and ambition and on the general lack of enterprise andeconomic discipline of the population. Several of these reporters attributedScotland's economic backwardness in large part to the deadening effect ofCalvinist doctrine as forcibly applied by both Church and State. Viner quotesHenry T. Buckle who, in his 1857 treatise Introduction to the History ofCivilization in England, wrote concerning the economic teachings of ScottishCalvinists in the seventeenth century as follows:To wish for more than was necessary to keep oneself alive was a sin as well as afolly and was a violation of the subjection we owe to God. That it was contrary

to His desire was moreover evident from the fact that He bestowed wealthliberally upon misers and covetous men; a remarkable circumstance, which, in theopinion of Scotch divines, proved that He was no lover of riches, otherwise Hewould not give them to such base and sordid persons.To be poor, dirty, and hungry, to pass through life in misery, and to leave itwith fear, to be plagued with boils, and sores, and diseases of every kind, tobe always sighing and groaning, . . . in a word [sic], to suffer constantaffliction, and to be tormented in all possible ways; to undergo these thingswas deemed proof of good ness, just as the contrary was a proof of evil.The opposition of Scottish Calvinism to capitalism was so well known in Europethat some English commentators such as Roger L'Estrange urged Englishbusinessmen to look at the record of the Scottish Presbyterians in interfering

with commerce and industry for religious reasons before supporting Cromwell'scause.In conclusion, the critics of Weber's Protestantism/capitalism theory havereasonable and logical criticisms. As a historian, I find the Tawney non-linearargument to be very compelling. There is no doubt that capitalism in variousforms existed in Europe prior to the Reformation. The Italian merchants and theDutch clothiers operated under a rational economic system. Double-entrybookkeeping was invented in Italy and adopted by other merchants throughoutEurope. I think it is obvious that several factors were at work in Europe duringthe long sixteenth century, which led to the growth and dominance of capitalism.

All of this taken into consideration, Weber's thesis still stands. His thesis isnot perfect; it has all the flaws pointed out by the above critics. However,none of the critics I have read managed to destroy the basic premise by whichWeber sought to explain the growth of capitalism. Something happened in the longsixteenth century which saw an explosion of capitalist economic activity, freethought, and religious rebellion. Whether the relationship among these is causalor coincidental will be grounds for conjecture for years to come. History shows


6/6

us that in fact those nations which were predominantly Protestant showedeconomic growth much greater than those which were predominantly Catholic. EvenJacob Viner's argument that the repressive nature of Scottish Calvinism does notdamage Weber, since he acknowledged that once a religion becomes a creature ofthe state it then tends to oppress people rather than free them.

Bibliography

Dickson, Tony and McLachlan, Hugh V. "In Search of 'The Spirit of Capitalism': Weber's Misinterpretation of Franklin," Sociology, Vol. 23, No. 1 (81-89).

Giddens, Anthony. Capitalism and Modern Social Theory: An Analysis of the Writings of Marx, Durkheim, and Max Weber. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1971.

Green, Robert W. Protestantism and Capitalism: The Weber Thesis and Its Critics.Boston: D. C Heath and Company, 1959.

Kitch, M. J. Capitalism and the Reformation. London: Longmans, Green & Co., Ltd., 1967.

Lehmann, Hartmut and Roth, Guenther. Weber's Protestant Ethic. Cam bridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993.

Marshall, Gordon. In Search of the Spirit of Capitalism. New York: Columbia University Press, 1982.

Roth, Guenther and Schluchter, Wolfgang. Max Weber's Vision of History. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1979.

Tawney, R. H. Religion and the Rise of Capitalism. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc., 1926.

Viner, Jacob. Religious Thought and Economic Society. Durham: Duke University Press, 1978.

Wallerstein, Immanuel. The Modern World-System, Vols 1-3. New York: Academic Press, 1974.

Weber, Max (Darth). The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. New York:Charles Scribner's Sons, 1958.

criticisms of weber thesis.txt

Documents