Re: Re: Weber's Genteel Racism

[kelley <kwalker2@xxxxxxx>]

> work is the notion of rationality. Only in Western Europe did a formal
> rational orientation penetrate every sphere of life.  The rise of this
> orientation is the *explanadum* of his historical analyses, the
> phenomenom that he thinks requires explanation if we want
> to understand the peculiarity of  the West.  Capital accounting
> symbolized by  double entry bookkeeping is crucial to this explanation
> because it is this very practice which directly exhibits this orientation in
> the sphere of economic life. Double-entry bookkeeping, therefore, cannot
> be define as just another empirical-factor in the rise of  modern capitalism.
>
> But neither should one pretend that a formal rational orientation exists
> within
> the economy simply because one has detected the practice of
> double-entry. For double-entry may be present yet capital accounting may
> be limited by a whole range of  factors like the absence of free labor and
> mechanized technology.


yeah, well, some folks would prefer to misread "rationalized accounting
mechanisms" or "mechanisms of rational accounting" (words i used in another
context) as reducible to double-entry bookeeping.  that is not, at all,
what weber was on about, as you note.  it was about *rationalized*
capitalism.  for him that meant several things:  standardization (as in
mesures, times, weights), predictability, calculability,  efficiency, control.

good luck with hab (youagain habermas, as i call him).  true, you can't get
hab without getting weber.  you can't get hab w/o getting a lot of other
thinkers, too.  but i suspect, for your purposes, weber is the one to focus on.


kelley