James Fulcher in his book Capitalism: A Very Short Introduction makes a valid point which in my opinion addresses some of the common misperceptions about Weber’s thesis in his book The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. Fulcher argues that Weber was not claiming that Protestantism caused capitalism, rather he pointed out that it “provided a set of ideas that motivated people to behave in capitalist ways.”[1] In this post I would like to highlight what exactly these ideas were, and how Weber understood them as bringing about capitalist behavior.
The Protestant ethic will be described in three interrelated concepts; calling, the subordination of work to ascetic duties, and the psychological effects.
The Protestant Ethic
1.) Calling:
Weber sees the source of ideas that motivate people to behave in capitalistic ways as emerging with Luther’s notion of calling, where “the valuation of the fulfillment of duty in worldly affairs” constitutes the highest form of moral activity for an individual thereby giving every-day worldly activities a “religious significance” and creating a “sense of calling” for believers. (80) However, one competing aspect of Luther’s theology kept his notion of calling from being able to produce the spirit of modern capitalism. Luther believed that people should remain where God has placed them in life. Weber states, “Thus for Luther the concept of the calling remained traditionalistic. His calling is something which man has to accept as a divine ordinance, to which he must adapt himself. This aspect outweighed the other idea which was also present, that work in the calling was a, or rather the, task set by God. [….]” Lutheranism highlighted the subordination to authority, which meant that “worldly duties were no longer subordinated to ascetic ones; obedience to authority and the acceptance of things as they were, were preached.” (85-86). In this area, Calvinism provided a contribution for the development of the protestant ethic.
2.) Worldly duties subordinated to ascetic duties:
One of the dimensions that Calvinism added to the Protestant ethic was that worldly duties were subordinated to ascetic ones. Calvin emphasized the doctrine of predestination which meant that there was no human means to earn salvation. According to Weber there was no way of knowing if one was part of the elect or not. This uncertainty led to a crisis that was addressed by Puritan theology. In response to this crisis the Puritan’s introduce the concept of proof of one’s election. Ultimately the proof was seen through consistent good works. Weber states: “Only one of the elect really has the fides efficax, only he is able by virtue of his rebirth (regeneration) and the resulting sanctification … of his whole life, to augment the glory of God by real, and not merely apparent, good works. [….] Thus, however useless good works might be as a means of attaining salvation … they are indispensable as a sign of election. They are the technical means, not of purchasing salvation, but of getting rid of the fear of damnation… in a systematic self-control which at every moment stands before the inexorable alternative, chosen or damned.” (114-115) This self-control (ascetic duties) which Weber describes came to subordinate peoples worldly duties.
3.) Psychological effect:
A second dimension that Calvinism added to the protestant ethic and intricately linked to the previous point is its psychological force that propels this asceticism.
Weber states: “The Puritan, like every rational type of asceticism, tried to enable a man to maintain and act upon his constant motives, especially those which it taught him itself, against the emotions. In this formal psychological sense of the term it tried to make him into a personality. Contrary to many popular ideas, the end of this asceticism was to be able to lead an alert, intelligent life: the most urgent task the destruction of spontaneous impulsive enjoyment, the most important means was to bring order into the conduct of its adherents.” (119) Weber sees this rationality and the psychological force it brought about as being able to decisively influence a person’s everyday life and business practices. This rationality and psychological effect is further explained by the desire of the individual to glorify God with his work. Weber states: “For everyone without exception God’s providence has prepared a calling, which he should profess and in which he should labour. And this calling is not as it was for the Lutheran, a fate to which he must submit and which he must make the best of, but God’s commandment to the individual to work for the divine glory. This seemingly subtle difference had far-reaching psychological consequences, and became connected with a further development of the providential interpretation of the economic order which had begun in scholasticism.” (159-160)
The Protestant Ethic and Capitalistic Behavior
All these three factors; perceiving your daily work as calling from God, subordinating that work to faith based asceticism and Puritan theologies, and its accompanying psychological mind frame, constitute the Protestant ethic which is the underlying Spirit of Capitalism.
This ethic led to self-denial and enabled people to overcome what Weber calls the traditionalistic way of living life. Weber describes the wordly protestant asceticism as acting “powerfully against the spontaneous enjoyment of possessions” and restricting the consumption of luxuries. “On the other hand, it had the psychological effect of freeing the acquisition of goods from the inhibitions of traditionalistic ethics. It broke the bond of the impulse of acquisition in that it not only legalized it, but (in the sense discussed) looked upon it as directly willed by God.” (170-171)
Two further quotes from Weber will suffice to show how he understood the protestant ethic to underlie capitalistic behavior.
1. “For, in conformity with the Old Testament and in analogy to the ethical valuation of good works, asceticism looked upon the pursuit of wealth as an end in itself as highly reprehensible; but the attainment of it as a fruit of labour in a calling was a sign of God’s blessing. And even more important: the religious valuation of restless, continuous, systematic work in a worldly calling, as the highest means to asceticism, and at the same time the surest and most evident proof of rebirth and genuine faith, must have been the most powerful conceivable lever for the expansion of that attitude toward life which we have here called the spirit of capitalism.” (172)
2. “When the limitation of consumption is combined with this release of acquisitive activity, the inevitable practical result is obvious: accumulation of capital through ascetic compulsion to save. The restraints which were imposed upon the consumption of wealth naturally served to increase it by making possible the productive investment of capital.” (172)
Observations
Weber seems to be concerned with the power material goods have gained over our lives. He writes: “In Baxter’s view the care for external goods should only lie on the shoulders of the “saint like a light cloak, which can be thrown aside at any moment”. But fate decreed that the cloak should become an iron cage.” (181) Weber seems to imply that Capitalism has become victorious over our lives and rules us in such a way that he did not seem to see a way of how we can escape this iron cage (stahlhartes Gehaeuse).
Thoughts / Questions
What does the Gospel have to say to us with regards to this captivity to material goods that Weber describes?
In the context of modern market societies, is profit maximization and increasing shareholder value an unethical end?
In the context of modern market societies, capitalism is known for having the end of “profit maximization”. Could Christianity provide a way to find “new ends” for capitalists endeavors which do not emphasize profit maximization as the sole goal but rather emphasize outcomes rooted in the gospel similar to the emergence of social entrepreneurship (for the benefit of society as a whole)?
[1] James Fulcher, Capitalism: A Very Short Introduction, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004) 35.
No comments:
Post a Comment