The Protestant Ethic Turns 100

Essays on the Centenary of the Weber Thesis

William H. Swatos Jr, Lutz Kaelber

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2016
• eBook ISBN: 9781317253341
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: Politics
• Index: Politics & International Relations

Marking the centennial anniversary of the first publication of Max Weber's "Protestant Ethic" essays, a group of internationally recognized Weber scholars review the significance of Weber's essays by addressing their original context, historical reception, and ongoing relevance. Lawrence Scaff, Hartmut Lehmann, Philip Gorski, Stephen Kalberg, Martin Riesebrodt, Donald Nielsen, Peter Kivisto, and the editors offer original perspectives that engage Weber's indelible work so as to inform current issues central to sociology, history, religious studies, political science, economics, and cultural studies. Available in several English translations, the Protestant Ethic is listed by the International Sociological Association among the top five "Books of the Century." The Protestant Ethic continues to be a standard assigned reading in undergraduate and graduate courses, spanning a variety of academic disciplines.

Chapter 1

Friends and Foes

The Formation and Consolidation of the Protestant Ethic Thesis

Hartmut Lehmann

WHEN MAX WEBER, TOGETHER WITH EDGAR JAFFé AND WERNER SOMBART, took over the editorship of the Archiv für Sozialwissenschaft und Sozialpolitik in the summer of 1903, he was faced with an unexpected dilemma: On the one hand, Weber had stated in the editorial for the first volume of the Archiv for which the new team of editors was responsible that no topic was more important for them than the investigation of the historical role and the theoretical implications of capitalism. In their view, Weber stressed, this was the one problem to which they should devote special attention.¹ On the other hand, Sombart had published a comprehensive and most impressive two-volume book on Modern Capitalism in 1902 that had found, by 1903, a somewhat mixed reception among German scholars in the field of economic history.² Weber knew only too well that the Archiv could not and should not bypass Sombart’s work, but rather had to publish a review of his book. At the same time, Weber also knew that he should not write this review himself, especially, as we can take from Weber’s later comments, as he disagreed, at least in part, with many of Sombart’s arguments. No doubt, it would have disrupted the cooperation in their team of editors had he written a critical review of Sombart’s work and had he published this review in the Archiv.

The Brentano Solution

In this situation, Weber had a brilliant idea. He concluded that he should ask the most renowned among German economic historians, Lujo Brentano, to review Sombart’s book for the Archiv. As Brentano had publicly lectured on “Ethics and Economy in History” as recently as 1901, this seemed an excellent solution for the problem with which he was confronted.³ Weber and Brentano discussed the possibility of Brentano’s writing a review of Sombart’s book in the fall of 1903. In September 1903 Weber participated in the yearly meeting of the Verein für Sozialpolitik in Hamburg, as did Brentano and Sombart. Marianne Weber mentions in the Lebensbild that following the conference, all three—that is, Brentano, Sombart, and Weber—spent some days together on the island of Helgoland.⁴ It is from Helgoland that Weber wrote to Jaffé on September 18, 1903, that Brentano had agreed to review Sombart’s book, although he had done so only “hesitantly” (halb und halb).⁵ Back in Heidelberg Weber did not hesitate to write to Brentano in order to convince him to make a firm commitment. “You have partially agreed to review Sombart’s book,” Weber wrote to Brentano in a letter dated October 4, 1903,

and I promise that I will not push you to deliver as other editors certainly would. But if I do make an exception in the case of Sombart’s book it is because I consider it absolutely essential that one of the leading scholars in our field should write this review. What we expect is not that you look into details. Others may do that at some other time.

Also, Weber added, he himself planned to discuss some of the methodological problems involved. But while many of Sombart’s critics were envious of Sombart’s achievements, and others were only able to see some of his factual mistakes, Brentano’s assessment of this work would be extremely helpful and valuable. It is in this sense that Weber kindly asked Brentano to review Sombart’s book for the Archiv.⁶

Although Brentano’s answer is not known, we can see from Weber’s reaction that Brentano’s response must not have been totally negative. In a letter dated October 10, 1903, Weber thanked Brentano for what he called a “conditional commitment” (befristete Zusage). In addition, Weber used this letter to supply Brentano with relevant bibliographical information, for example, data about Ernst Troeltsch’s article on “Moralisten, englische” in the new edition of the Realencyklopaedie, Hermann Weingarten’s book about Englische Revolutionskirchen, and Eduard Bernstein’s work on seventeenth-century English radicals and dissenters. Although he himself knew only part of the larger literature on Puritanism, Weber remarked, it would be a pleasure for him to supply the necessary material to Brentano, provided that Brentano would give him somewhat more detailed information about the questions that he intended to pursue and discuss. In turn, Weber thanked Brentano for pointing out some material to him.⁷ As for himself, Weber continued, he planned to use the coming winter (1903–04) to work on the lecture that he had promised to give at the St. Louis congress and then look again at the sources (supposedly about methodological matters and perhaps also about ascetic Protestantism) for an article that he planned to write for the Archiv.⁸

With regard to the genesis of Weber’s article on “The Protestant Ethic and the ‘Spirit’ of Capitalism,” his letters of October 4 and October 10, 1903, contain important information. While Weber had mentioned in his letter of October 4 that he planned to discuss the methodological aspects of Sombart’s book, his letter of October 10, 1903, documents that by this time something like an agreement between Brentano and Weber about how they wanted to treat Sombart’s book had been reached. On the one hand, Weber thanked Brentano for bibliographical help and in turn supplied Brentano with further relevant bibliographical material about seventeenth-century English Puritanism. This indicates clearly that Brentano must have seriously contemplated reviewing Sombart’s work for the Archiv. On the other hand, Weber mentions in his second letter that he intended to study the sources again and that he wanted to write an essay about the matter for the Archiv. What we have in front of us, therefore, looks like a division of labor: While Brentano was supposed to look at the relevance of Calvinism and Puritanism for the genesis of modern capitalism, it was, supposedly, Weber’s task to discuss the methodological implications. There can be no doubt, however, that by October 1903, Weber had begun to occupy himself with reading secondary literature on Calvinism and Puritanism and studying the relevant sources very seriously. As it seems, this included also a discussion of the genesis of modern capitalism in the essay that he intended to write. On the basis of the information available, it is unclear whether it was Brentano who first proposed to examine Sombart’s theses by looking at the role of seventeenth-century ascetic Protestantism, or whether this was, which seems more likely, Weber’s idea. After all, Weber had taken an interest in the economic activities of Calvinism already in the late 1890s.⁹

For reasons that we do not know, Brentano did not write the review he had promised in the course of the winter 1903–04. On March 9, 1904, Weber, therefore, wrote another letter to Brentano. As the break between semesters was approaching, Weber argued, he took the liberty to come back to his earlier request. Brentano had promised, though hesitantly, to review Sombart’s book, Weber wrote. He had no idea how he could publish a scientific evaluation of this book in the Archiv, Weber continued, if Brentano was not responding to his request positively. As he had mentioned earlier, Weber added, such a review would be extremely important. As of now, only scholars with a “limited mind” (lauter Detailkrämer) had discussed Sombart’s book. No one had attempted to characterize the role of Sombart’s material and conclusions in relation to modern scholarship. However, only someone with authority in the field could do this. In his view, therefore, only the first authority in economic history, namely, Brentano, was able to shoulder this “most delicate task” (heikle Aufgabe). Younger scholars, no matter whether they praised Sombart or criticized him, were not suited to review Sombart’s book. As it was a very special kind of review, Weber concluded, he very much hoped that Brentano would finally agree to follow his request.¹⁰

In his answer to this letter, which we do not have, Brentano must have been having second thoughts. This is evident when we read Weber’s answer, dated March 28, 1904. “Most clearly,” Weber wrote, Sombart had to be prepared to accept a critical review (from this we can conclude that Brentano had indicated that he would criticize Sombart). Also, Weber replied to Brentano, Sombart cannot protest if his style and some of his unsuited “examples” (Geschmacklosigkeiten) are criticized (again, we can assume that this is what Brentano mentioned that he would do in his review). As other reviewers had pointed out these matters at great length, Weber continued, this is not what he expected from Brentano. Rather, what Weber hoped that Brentano’s review would contain, and what Sombart was able to appreciate a great deal in Weber’s view, was a sober assessment of Sombart’s scholarly achievements. If one criticized Sombart personally, he felt both pleased and provoked, Weber added. By contrast, what Sombart longed for was genuine interest in the problems that he had discussed in his book. Even a short piece that argued in this manner, Weber wrote, would be immensely valuable. In short: He, Weber, very much hoped that Brentano would finally decide to write the review. The existence of such a review, Weber concluded, would be most important both for Sombart and the Archiv.¹¹

This time Brentano’s answer is known. Already a day later, March 29, 1904, he wrote to Weber that he planned to occupy himself with Sombart’s work and then see what could be done. “Most certainly,” he added, he would attempt to point out the positive aspects that he could detect in Sombart’s book.¹² We do not know if Brentano informed Weber a few weeks later that he had decided not to review Sombart’s book after all. What is certain is the fact that Brentano never wrote a review of Sombart’s work in 1904 or in the following years, neither for the Archiv nor for any other scholarly journal. It is only much later, namely, in 1913, that Brentano discussed Sombart’s views in some detail.¹³ This was after Sombart had published two additional works on the subject of the rise of modern capitalism, namely, Die Juden und das Wirtschaftsleben, published in 1911, and Der Bourgeois, published in 1913.¹⁴

As regards Weber’s own study of the genesis of modern capitalism in light of Sombart’s recent work, by spring of 1904 his research had progressed to the degree that he wrote to his publisher, Paul Siebeck on April 12, 1904, that he intended to write an article for the Archiv about “Protestantische Ethik und kapitalistischer Geist.” As Weber continued, he had yet to get this project, from which he expected a great deal, seriously under way.¹⁵ A few weeks later Weber made a last attempt to convince Brentano to write the review that he had promised. On May 21, 1904, that is at a time when he was in the middle of composing the first part of his own essay on “The Protestant Ethic and the ‘Spirit’ of Capitalism,” Weber wrote to Brentano the following: He “did not want to bother or, rather, annoy” Brentano with Sombart’s book, but in his own view, “as of now [1904], the critics of this work had only been historians, and they had all taken only a very limited approach to the problems addressed” by Sombart. By contrast, he expected Brentano “to discuss also all other issues that Sombart had raised.” In particular, he hoped that Brentano would elaborate on “the genesis of the modern economic spirit” (das mächtige Problem der Entstehung des modernen wirtschaftlichen Geistes). This is why he “looked forward” to Brentano’s statement. Should Brentano decide to write the review, he (Weber) and Edgar Jaffé would be “genuinely pleased.”¹⁶

Weber’s letter to Siebeck of April 12, 1904, makes clear that by early April Weber was preparing a study for the Archiv about the implications of the Protestant ethic for the spirit that facilitated capitalist development and had already formulated a title for this study that was quite close to the final title he had chosen for this piece of scholarship. Furthermore, Weber’s letter indicates that he now intended to discuss the importance of Calvinism...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Dedication
• Table of Contents
• Foreword—1905: Weber in the Year of Miracles
• Prefatory Note
• Introduction—The Centenary of Weber’s Protestant Ethic Essay
• Chapter 1—Friends and Foes: The Formation and Consolidation of the Protestant Ethic Thesis
• Chapter 2—Dimensions of the Protestant Ethic
• Chapter 3—The Protestant Ethic and the “Spirit” of Capitalism as Grand Narrative: Max Weber’s Philosophy of History
• Chapter 4—Remnants of Romanticism: Max Weber in Oklahoma and Indian Territory
• Chapter 5—The Contexts of the Publication and Reception of the Protestant Ethic
• Chapter 6—Rational Capitalism, Traditionalism, and Adventure Capitalism: New Research on the Weber Thesis
• Chapter 7—The Little Divergence: The Protestant Reformation and Economic Hegemony in Early Modern Europe
• Chapter 8—Utilizing Max Weber’s “Iron Cage” to Define the Past, Present, and Future of the American Political Culture
• Bibliography
• Index
• About the Editors