|
Fall, 2004 |
Ernesto Verdeja |
[
Introduction
] [ Assignment ]
[ Essay ] [ Study Questions ]
Last week we saw how the ethos of modern capitalism grew out of the rationalization of the religious vision underlying modern Protestantism. According to Weber, Protestantism is the epitome of a religion of active asceticism, in which the devout see themselves as God's tools, whose purpose is to do His work on earth. A critical idea for Protestantism, then, is the idea of a "calling" or "vocation," for it is the idea of a calling that suffuses ordinary, worldly activities with transcendent meaning. While the specifically religious meaning of a vocation is no longer central to the culture of the West, the idea of a vocation continues to be important. One of the principal means through which many people in our society define themselves, and come to find a sense of meaning and purpose in their lives is through their work or vocation. In two of his most famous and most brilliant essays, Weber sets out to address the meaning of science and of politics as vocations in the modern world.
There is something deeply problematic about the pursuit of science as a vocation. In one sense, science may be seen as a continuation of the historical process of the rationalization of religious worldviews. As we have seen, one important characteristic of religions (at least religions of individual salvation) is that they provide answers to the deep and fundamental question posed by Tolstoy: "What shall we do and how shall we live?" In answering this question, religions offer their adherents a vision of the world which enables them to see how their own lives, and their suffering, fit into a broader scheme of things. They come to see how their lives serve purposes which make them worthwhile, and so they can become reconciled to the world and its apparent irrationalities. This attempt "practically and ethically to rationalize the world" (p. 357) complements the effort of science to comprehend the world in theoretical terms. But the very success of science in increasing our rational understanding of the world undermines the religious vision which gave our lives meaning, and which led to the rationalization of our worldviews in the first place! Science has this result because it leads to the "disenchantment of the world." It forces us to see the world as stripped of purpose and ultimate meaning, as the locus of the interplay of causal forces, whose ultimate outcomes are governed by contingent circumstances and which do not serve, and are not controlled by, any higher purpose.
Because it strips the world of meaning, science as a vocation is doubly problematic. In the first place, it calls into question the possibility of answering Tolstoy's query at all. On what basis can we find meaning in our lives if we can no longer see the world as "enchanted," as a realm of purpose and meaning that transcends one's own, individual life? Second, we must ask what, if any, point can the calling of science – the life of scholarship, study, and theoretical reflection – have for the men and women who pursue it? How can science contribute to the lives of its practitioners, and what role can it play in giving point and direction to the lives of others? What special qualities does it require in a person, and what special rewards does it offer? These are the questions that Weber sets out to answer in "Science as a Vocation."
From the account I have given so far, you may think that Weber could have no answer to these questions, that his view of life in the modern age must be entirely bleak. But that is not really the case. In the face of an increasingly rationalized world, he saw a possible stance a person could take which would involve a special kind of heroism, the heroism of the individual who can stand up to the "stern seriousness of these fateful times" (149), who could make his or her own commitments and affirmations, and live in accordance with them, without the illusion that they are anything but one's own commitments. The modern hero must have an adequate understanding of his or her situation, and must make commitments that are not based upon self-deception, or the delusion that the world could be different.
Such a person will be characterized by enormous inner strength, and may also serve as an inspiration for others, presenting them with an image and a model of how they might live their own lives. If so, that person might have the capability to become a political actor. In "Politics as a Vocation" Weber describes the qualities a person must have "if he is to be allowed to put his hand on the wheel of history." In many ways the political life is more demanding than the life of scholarship and science for politics gives rise to deep moral and personal paradoxes that the political actor must face. While the scholar must above all be committed to truth, and must recognize the limitations of his or her authority and role as a scientist, the politician is responsible for the well-being of a community, and must strive to advance a "cause" in his or her public actions. This means that politicians may face deep conflicts between the requirements of ordinary or private moral life and their public responsibilities.
The specific means of politics is violence: the state, in Weber's well-known definition, claims a monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory. Because of this, the politician may have to use means, such as killing or lying, that would be utterly wrong for someone acting in other roles. Those who let themselves "in for politics, that is, for power and force as means, [contract] with diabolical powers and for [their] actions it is not true that good can follow only from good and evil only from evil, but that often the opposite is true. Anyone who fails to see this is, indeed, a political infant." In order to deal with these dilemmas, Weber develops his account of an "ethics of responsibility" and an "ethics of absolute principles," arguing that the politician must strive to find an appropriate balance between them. (Note: In your edition of "Politics as a Vocation," the translators have used the phrase "ethics of ultimate ends" for "ethics of absolute principles." Their phrase is somewhat misleading as it does not capture the distinction between the two systems of ethics as adequately as the phrase I have suggested. You might substitute "ethics of absolute principles" whenever you see "ethics of ultimate ends" in the essay.)
One reason why politics presents us with such deep moral problems is that it is so different from religion in the means it must employ, but similar to religion in that the state, like religious associations, is capable of giving meaning to death. This is most evident on the battlefield, where soldiers feel that they are risking their lives and dying for their country. Politics is also similar to religion in the important role that charismatic leadership plays in both spheres. Last week we saw that much of history could be seen as an interplay between inspiration and the routinization or rationalization of an inspired vision in systems of belief and in social institutions. The men and women who offer such visions are charismatic figures. They have the "gift of grace," and are followed because they can inspire personal devotion and personal confidence on account of their extraordinary qualities such as heroism, sanctity, or exemplary character. A charismatic figure offers his or her followers a vision of life which they accept and follow because they believe in him or her.
Because charismatic leaders are set apart from ordinary men and women, because they are endowed with supernatural, superhuman, or at least exceptional powers and qualities, they "must stand outside the ties of this world, outside of routine occupations, as well as the routine obligations of family life." This means that there is "an unavoidable separation from this world of all those who partake of charisma" (248). This "separation from the ordinary" means that charismatic figures are an important source of innovation in society – they have a kind of authority that enables them to break with traditions and to articulate new values and norms. But it also means that their authority is inherently unstable. Because they are exceptional, because they stand outside of the ordinary flow of life, because their authority is purely personal, they do not provide an "ordered procedure of appointment or dismissal" (246); they must "reject as undignified any pecuniary gain that is methodical and rational" (247); and they do not provide a formal method for the adjudication of disputes (250). Because charisma is personal, the possession of a particular individual, it is necessarily impermanent.
It follows from this that if an inspired vision is to be efficacious it must make its peace with the world: it must assume a form that can be applied in the everyday world, and it must become manifest in an organization based on forms of discipline, on the "consistently rationalized, methodically trained and exact execution of the received order" (253). If charismatic leadership is to give rise to a new way of life, to new institutions and practices or to a stable system of rule, it must be "routinized." Of course, this need is particularly acute when the movement faces the problem of succession due to the death of the original, charismatic figure. The routinization of charisma can take two directions. On the one hand, it may be "traditionalized," as customary practices evolve through which the authority of the old leader is passed on to successive generations. The grounds of authority in this case will be in part "the sanctity of immemorial traditions." On the other hand, the authority may be "rationalized." In this case, authority will be in part at least "rational-legal" in form. Recruitment to the administration will be based upon technical competence and training, and obedience will be based "on a belief in the legality of enacted rules and the right of those elevated to authority under such rules to issue commands."
Historically, the dominant form of authority throughout much of the world was traditional authority, occasionally interrupted by the rise of new charismatic leaders who would establish a new dynasty or other religious and political institutions. But in the Occident, a process of rationalization has occurred that has fundamentally altered that pattern. While the rationalization of religious visions or political structures and ideology is a general feature of human life, in modern times in the West this process has been carried much farther and has been much more intense than anywhere else. This is due in part to the growth of scientific knowledge and the division of labor occasioned by capitalism, and by the fact that rationalization has come to be self-consciously pursued by social actors as efficiency has become an important value in our culture. This has resulted in a way of life and a system of institutions that threatens the dialectic between inspiration and its routinization or rationalization that has previously characterized human history.
Modern society is dominated by large-scale, bureaucratic organizations. Bureaucracy is the epitome of rational-legal authority; bureaucratic structures tend to replace non-bureaucratic forms of administration largely because of their superior efficiency. The growth of bureaucracy is closely related to the growth of democracy (which requires uniform or equal treatment of people, a prime characteristic of bureaucracy) and to the growth of market or capitalist society (which requires stable expectations regarding the actions of public authorities). But as modern society comes to be dominated by remote, impersonal structures of state, business corporation, and market, individuals may experience the world as an increasingly alien one, over which they can exercise no control, and with which they cannot identify. In some of his moments Weber could see only the vision of a future in which men and women were trapped in an "iron cage" of rationalization, bureaucratization, the decline of art, spontaneity, and impulse, and in which the individual can find no solid grounding for his or her ultimate commitments. This is the oppressive world that Kafka describes so tellingly in novels such as The Trial.
Weber and Marx offer different diagnoses of the problems of modern life and, not surprisingly, they prescribe different solutions. Weber rejects socialism as an ideal; by abolishing the market, socialism would lead to the universal bureaucratization of life and so further restrict possibilities for individuality and self-expression. Rather, Weber advocates a system of parliamentary democracy which would encourage charismatic political leaders to rise to the fore. Such leaders, Weber hopes, would be able to control the bureaucracy and make it responsive to the changing needs and aspirations of the citizenry. Of course, this is a limited solution; it is possible only if we have politicians and citizens who possess the maturity to cope with the "polar night of icy darkness" (128) that, in the end, defines our lot.
Assignment: Max Weber, "Science as a Vocation," "Politics as a Vocation," "The Sociology of Charismatic Authority," "The Meaning of Discipline," "Bureaucracy," all in From Max Weber. "Bureaucracy and Political Leadership," xeroxed hand-out.
1. What is the role of science in making value judgments? Can we provide a rational grounding for moral values and norms?
2. "He who seeks the salvation of the soul, of his own and of others, should not seek it along the avenue of politics" (126). Why not? What should be sought in political action?
3. Critically assess Weber's vision of modern politics and society. In what ways do you find it appealing? In what ways problematic? Does Weber convincingly refute those (such as Marx or even Durkheim) who hold out the vision of a genuine community under the conditions of modern society?
4. It has been said that a paradox of modern democracy is that it necessarily gives rise to bureaucracy which necessarily undermines democracy. Critically assess this claim.
1. "It is the fate of charisma, whenever it comes into the permanent institutions of a community, to give way to powers of tradition or of rational socialization" (253). Why?
2. Explain: "Discipline in general, like its most rational offspring bureaucracy, is impersonal" (254).
3. Exactly how is military discipline the "ideal model" for the modern capitalist factory?
4. How does charisma "remain a highly important element of the social structure" (263) even after it has become routinized, and even after the sources of authority become traditional or rational-legal?
5. Why is the development of the money economy a presupposition of bureaucracy?
6. "Bureaucracy is occasioned more by intensive and qualitative enlargement and internal deployment of the scope of administrative tasks than by their extensive and quantitative increase" (212). Explain.
7. Why is bureaucracy "among those social structures which are hardest to destroy" (228)?
8. Why does Weber say that in the modern world the "struggle of the 'specialist type of man' against the older type of 'cultivated man'" enters "into all intimate cultural questions" (243)?
9. Why does Weber place the discussion of the "legitimation of domination" at the forefront of his account of political power?
10. "All states may be classified according to whether they rest on the principle that the staff of men themselves own the administrative means, or whether the staff is 'separated' from these means of administration" (81). Why does Weber propose this basis for classification?
11. What is the significance of the role of lawyers in politics in the west, according to Weber?
12. "To take a stand, to be passionate . . . is the politician's element" (95). Explain.
13. Why does Weber say that tragedy is an aspect of all political action?
14. What is the difference between the "ethic of absolute principles" (in your translation, "ethic of ultimate ends") and the "ethic of responsibility"? Which is more appropriate to political life?
15. In what ways does Weber think these two "ethics" can be understood as supplements to each other?
16. Just how does science lead to the disenchantment of the world?
[ Top of Page ] [ CSS 271 Index ] [ CSS Course List ]