Re:Weber

["Ricardo Duchesne" <RDUCHESN@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> Date sent:      Thu, 09 Oct 1997 16:54:04 -0400
> From:           Wojtek Sokolowski <sokol@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject:        Re:Weber
> To:             RDUCHESN@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Earlier Ricardo wrote:

 >First, for Weber the protestant ethic played only a partial
> >role in the rise of capitalism; in fact, this ethic is just one more
> >instance of the development of "occidental rationalization". Weber
> >examines the rise of capitalism in terms of the progressive
> >institutionalization of higher levels of
> >instrumental rationality.  Thus, the development of calculable law,
> >rationalized markets (of which free labor is an extension), a
> >bureaucratic state, and so on, play as important a role as the
> >protestant ethic. Secondly, as far as the explanation of long-term
> >historical transformations are concerned, it is the neo-Weberians,
> >not the Marxists, who have the upper hand right now. Think of Mann,
> >Runciman, Tilly, Skocpol. Silly arguments agaisnt idealism do not
> >resolve these difficulties. ricardo
> >

Sokolowski replied:

> I reply (WS):  I concur.  The only correction I'd like to add is that I see
> neo-Weberian analysis as being perfectly in-line with Marxism at least its
> spirit; academic turf battles notwithstanding.  Both view the organization
> of economy as the key variable explaining a whole bunch of other things;
> both emphasize the importance of history as opposed to a-historical
> bourgeois political economy, and both heavily draw from but also transcend
> the classcial concept of economic rationality.  Where they depart is the
> Hegelian concept of historical teleologism -- which Weber jettisons
> altogether for historical contingentism -- and is absolutely right in so
> doing.  The Hegelian strand was the liablity rather than the asset to
> Marxism -- it made possible cheap shots from the hip like "your predictions
> about the future did not materialize."  It is much better to leave this
> stuff to Fukuyama & Co.
>
I agree with you that Weber should not be seen as an "idealist".
On the other hand, Weber did not give priority to the economy, nor
did he advance an accidental (or contingent) view of history.
Historical causality cannot be reduced to the
two extreme poles of  "teleologism" and "contingentism". Weber, for
his part, sought to conceptualize the conjunctural interaction of a
broad set of historical forces. In contrast to the marxist tradition,
one does not find in him any attempt to prioritize one or two
causal factors. And neither does one find a strictly contingent
conception of history. Weber had one singular preoccupation: to
explain the peculiar rationalism of Western culture. How and why this
rationalism developed was a complex empirical question, in which
contingency played a major role but always within the context of a
broad set of forces (economic, political, military, cultural).

Finally, Hegel never advocated a teleological
conception of history; if anything that has been a characteristic of
Marxists - though not all. There is a telos to Hegel, but one far
more complex than the one you are criticizing.

ricardo