Pub Date : 2018-07-15DOI: 10.7765/9781526137609.00005
S. Whimster, D. Kaesler, R. Button, L. Kaelber, Niall Bond, E. Hanke, Gangolf Hübinger, Wolfgang Schwentker, Hubert Treiber, M. R. Lepsius, Gerhard Wagner
Abstract:This 'note' constitutes a study of thematic affinities in the work of the German poet Heinrich Heine (1797–1856) and Max Weber (1864–1920). With an emphasis on Weber's reference to Heine in the footnotes of The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, we seek to respond to and explore Gregory Höhn's (2002) observation that in the philosophy of history expressed in Heine's poetry and prose, Heine anticipates Weber's understanding of the process of disenchantment and its existential consequences. This discussion is the site for a consideration of the Enlightenment-mythology relation. A particular emphasis is placed on devaluing reversal as a motif of the disenchantment-rationalization narrative in Heine and Weber, and how this motif relates to a condition of alienation. We explore the way in which devaluing reversal as an inner motif of the development of modern capitalist society finds an apposite expression in the religious image of the demonic.
{"title":"List of Contributors","authors":"S. Whimster, D. Kaesler, R. Button, L. Kaelber, Niall Bond, E. Hanke, Gangolf Hübinger, Wolfgang Schwentker, Hubert Treiber, M. R. Lepsius, Gerhard Wagner","doi":"10.7765/9781526137609.00005","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.7765/9781526137609.00005","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract:This 'note' constitutes a study of thematic affinities in the work of the German poet Heinrich Heine (1797–1856) and Max Weber (1864–1920). With an emphasis on Weber's reference to Heine in the footnotes of The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, we seek to respond to and explore Gregory Höhn's (2002) observation that in the philosophy of history expressed in Heine's poetry and prose, Heine anticipates Weber's understanding of the process of disenchantment and its existential consequences. This discussion is the site for a consideration of the Enlightenment-mythology relation. A particular emphasis is placed on devaluing reversal as a motif of the disenchantment-rationalization narrative in Heine and Weber, and how this motif relates to a condition of alienation. We explore the way in which devaluing reversal as an inner motif of the development of modern capitalist society finds an apposite expression in the religious image of the demonic.","PeriodicalId":103306,"journal":{"name":"Max Weber Studies","volume":"56 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-07-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"132357644","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2018-07-12DOI: 10.7765/9781526137975.00003
J. Green, S. Whimster, G. Poggi, Hubert Treiber, H. Orihara, G. Dilcher
Abstract:Political scientists are not generally accustomed to treating Max Weber's unusual account of democracy–plebiscitary leader democracy–as a genuine democratic theory. The typical objection is that Weber's account of democracy in terms of the generation of charismatic leadership is not really a democratic theory at all, because it contains no positive account of popular power: specifically, that it presents democracy in such a fashion that there is no capacity for the People to participate in the articulation and ratification of the norms, laws and policies governing the conduct of public life. This essay argues that Weber's theory of plebiscitary leader democracy ought to be interpreted as rejecting, not any account of popular power, but only a traditional and still dominant vocal paradigm of popular power: one which assumes that popular power must refer to an authorial power to self-legislate the norms and conditions of public life, or at least to express substantive opinions, values and preferences about what kinds of decisions political leaders ought to be making. Properly understood, plebiscitary leader democracy embodies a novel, ocular paradigm of popular power according to which the object of popular power is the leader (not the law), the organ of popular power is the People's gaze (not its voice), and the critical ideal associated with popular empowerment is the candor of leaders (not the autonomous authorship of laws). Thus, rather than abandon the concept of popular power, Weber's theory of democracy reinvents its meaning under conditions of mass society.
{"title":"List of Contributors","authors":"J. Green, S. Whimster, G. Poggi, Hubert Treiber, H. Orihara, G. Dilcher","doi":"10.7765/9781526137975.00003","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.7765/9781526137975.00003","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract:Political scientists are not generally accustomed to treating Max Weber's unusual account of democracy–plebiscitary leader democracy–as a genuine democratic theory. The typical objection is that Weber's account of democracy in terms of the generation of charismatic leadership is not really a democratic theory at all, because it contains no positive account of popular power: specifically, that it presents democracy in such a fashion that there is no capacity for the People to participate in the articulation and ratification of the norms, laws and policies governing the conduct of public life. This essay argues that Weber's theory of plebiscitary leader democracy ought to be interpreted as rejecting, not any account of popular power, but only a traditional and still dominant vocal paradigm of popular power: one which assumes that popular power must refer to an authorial power to self-legislate the norms and conditions of public life, or at least to express substantive opinions, values and preferences about what kinds of decisions political leaders ought to be making. Properly understood, plebiscitary leader democracy embodies a novel, ocular paradigm of popular power according to which the object of popular power is the leader (not the law), the organ of popular power is the People's gaze (not its voice), and the critical ideal associated with popular empowerment is the candor of leaders (not the autonomous authorship of laws). Thus, rather than abandon the concept of popular power, Weber's theory of democracy reinvents its meaning under conditions of mass society.","PeriodicalId":103306,"journal":{"name":"Max Weber Studies","volume":"83 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-07-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128360576","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract:Criticisms of Weber's over-emphasis on Indic civilization in terms of an unchanging Vedic caste order have to be tempered by the contingent role given to political rulerships, which Weber theorizes in term of patrimonialism and the legitimating role of religion in Indic rulerships. The article considers whether the ideal type of patrimonialism is vulnerable to Dipesh Chakrabarty's provincializing Europe critique. The article makes two points: firstly, Weber recognizes the situatedness of academic thought and the ideal type is his answer to the value-relatedness of all academic study in the human and social sciences. Secondly, academic discourse is open to the deployment of other ideal types, such as the segmental state, alongside patrimonialism. Weber's ideal-typical approach in his study of Hinduism and Buddhism has to be separated from the historical approach to India in his General Economic History where the role of colonialism is crucial to the rise of colonial capitalism and to the critical path dependency of western modern industrial capitalism.
{"title":"Weber's use of the ideal type of patrimonialism for Indic rulership","authors":"S. Whimster","doi":"10.15543/MWS/2018/2/4","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15543/MWS/2018/2/4","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract:Criticisms of Weber's over-emphasis on Indic civilization in terms of an unchanging Vedic caste order have to be tempered by the contingent role given to political rulerships, which Weber theorizes in term of patrimonialism and the legitimating role of religion in Indic rulerships. The article considers whether the ideal type of patrimonialism is vulnerable to Dipesh Chakrabarty's provincializing Europe critique. The article makes two points: firstly, Weber recognizes the situatedness of academic thought and the ideal type is his answer to the value-relatedness of all academic study in the human and social sciences. Secondly, academic discourse is open to the deployment of other ideal types, such as the segmental state, alongside patrimonialism. Weber's ideal-typical approach in his study of Hinduism and Buddhism has to be separated from the historical approach to India in his General Economic History where the role of colonialism is crucial to the rise of colonial capitalism and to the critical path dependency of western modern industrial capitalism.","PeriodicalId":103306,"journal":{"name":"Max Weber Studies","volume":"108 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115856484","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"The Max Weber Dictionary: Key Words and Central Concepts (review)","authors":"A. Sica","doi":"10.1353/max.2018.0005","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/max.2018.0005","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":103306,"journal":{"name":"Max Weber Studies","volume":"5 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122030070","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract:While ‘individuality’ is regarded as a cultural construct, this article argues that its trans-cultural investigation has hardly begun, both empirically and theoretically. Comparative work to date has been confined to euro-centric approaches. South Asian models of the individual, though amongst the earliest on record, have not been taken seriously as credible alternatives to European models, other than under the label of ‘ethnosociology’. The present article seeks to redress the balance, by offering a sociological reconstruction of the classical concept of the individual in Jaina philosophy and of its social implications. It argues that previously opaque aspects of the dualistic conception of individuality of the Jainas can be freshly understood, and analysed, with the help of the sociological concepts of G. Simmel and N. Luhmann, which in turn are interpreted as variations of broader transcultural themes.
{"title":"Social-Differentiation and Self-Differentiation: The Jaina Concept of the Individual and Sociological Individualisation-Paradigms","authors":"P. Flügel","doi":"10.15543/MWS/2018/2/5","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15543/MWS/2018/2/5","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract:While ‘individuality’ is regarded as a cultural construct, this article argues that its trans-cultural investigation has hardly begun, both empirically and theoretically. Comparative work to date has been confined to euro-centric approaches. South Asian models of the individual, though amongst the earliest on record, have not been taken seriously as credible alternatives to European models, other than under the label of ‘ethnosociology’. The present article seeks to redress the balance, by offering a sociological reconstruction of the classical concept of the individual in Jaina philosophy and of its social implications. It argues that previously opaque aspects of the dualistic conception of individuality of the Jainas can be freshly understood, and analysed, with the help of the sociological concepts of G. Simmel and N. Luhmann, which in turn are interpreted as variations of broader transcultural themes.","PeriodicalId":103306,"journal":{"name":"Max Weber Studies","volume":"64 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129581338","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract:Expanding on prior discussion of the perils in translating the work of Max Weber, this paper compares five English versions of ‘Science as a Vocation’ (‘Wissenschaft als Beruf’) to show that none achieves maximum fidelity. The contrasting versions reflect divergent translation strategies that make the anglicized Weber a protean figure whose voice and meaning come through unevenly. The comparison points to a need for broader scholarly attention to problems of translation and suggests a different approach to future translations of classic texts in social science.
摘要:在先前关于翻译马克斯·韦伯作品的危险讨论的基础上，本文比较了五个英文版本的《科学作为一种职业》(“Wissenschaft als Beruf”)，以表明没有一个版本达到了最大的保真度。不同版本的翻译反映了不同的翻译策略，这使得英国化的韦伯成为一个千变万化的人物，他的声音和意义都是不均匀的。比较指出，需要更广泛的学术关注翻译问题，并建议一个不同的方法来翻译经典文本的社会科学。
{"title":"Versions of Vocation: Max Weber's ‘Wissenschaft als Beruf’ in Translation","authors":"F. Lechner","doi":"10.15543/mws/2018/2/6","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15543/mws/2018/2/6","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract:Expanding on prior discussion of the perils in translating the work of Max Weber, this paper compares five English versions of ‘Science as a Vocation’ (‘Wissenschaft als Beruf’) to show that none achieves maximum fidelity. The contrasting versions reflect divergent translation strategies that make the anglicized Weber a protean figure whose voice and meaning come through unevenly. The comparison points to a need for broader scholarly attention to problems of translation and suggests a different approach to future translations of classic texts in social science.","PeriodicalId":103306,"journal":{"name":"Max Weber Studies","volume":"87 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125063081","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract:Two standard interpretations of traditional action are rejected. Traditional action is not subjectively meaningful in the sense of having what Talcott Parsons calls a ‘normative orientation’. But nor is traditional action a matter of blind habit. I contend, instead, that traditional action is subjectively meaningful insofar as the actor's seemingly aberrant behavior can be rendered intelligible by appeal to shared exemplars. I provide further evidence for the proposed interpretation of traditional action by showing how it illuminates Weber's account of traditional authority. The traditions that legitimize a traditional master consist, not just in rules or decisions, but in exemplars and precedents as found in the ‘documents of tradition’. I conclude with a discussion of how the proposed account of traditional action and authority illuminates charismatic authority and Weber's notion of the irrational.
{"title":"Traditional Action and Traditional Authority","authors":"Joshua Rust","doi":"10.1353/max.2018.0000","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/max.2018.0000","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract:Two standard interpretations of traditional action are rejected. Traditional action is not subjectively meaningful in the sense of having what Talcott Parsons calls a ‘normative orientation’. But nor is traditional action a matter of blind habit. I contend, instead, that traditional action is subjectively meaningful insofar as the actor's seemingly aberrant behavior can be rendered intelligible by appeal to shared exemplars. I provide further evidence for the proposed interpretation of traditional action by showing how it illuminates Weber's account of traditional authority. The traditions that legitimize a traditional master consist, not just in rules or decisions, but in exemplars and precedents as found in the ‘documents of tradition’. I conclude with a discussion of how the proposed account of traditional action and authority illuminates charismatic authority and Weber's notion of the irrational.","PeriodicalId":103306,"journal":{"name":"Max Weber Studies","volume":"12 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127482892","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Max Weber's Vision for Bureaucracy: A Casualty of World War I (review)","authors":"C. Adair‐Toteff","doi":"10.1353/max.2018.0011","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/max.2018.0011","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":103306,"journal":{"name":"Max Weber Studies","volume":"9 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"121872352","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Max Weber's theory of personality: individuation, politics and orientalism in the sociology of religion (review)","authors":"C. Turner","doi":"10.1353/max.2018.0012","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/max.2018.0012","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":103306,"journal":{"name":"Max Weber Studies","volume":"53 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"121726105","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：