Abstract:This article provides a re-assessment of Bauman's interpretation of Weber. It refers to this end to Du Gay's critique, which came out in the late 1980s and called into question the accuracy of Bauman's interpretation of Weber as contained in Modernity and the Holocaust. Du Gay objects of Bauman that Weber's ideal type of modern bureaucratic organizations is not incompatible with ethical considerations, and Bauman has therefore misrepresented Weber. The article dwells on and evaluates this objection also in the light of this work, and other and more recent works by Bauman. Bauman has consistently praised Weber for his ability to understand the modern condition, and Bauman considers him as a sociologist of the modern age, but also as an academic outsider. Weber could therefore understand better than other scholars that ‘lighter’ (rather than ‘heavy’) modalities of the capitalist order are conceivable. ‘Lighter capitalism’ is however a trait of Bauman's conception of post modernity (which this article briefly considers), rather than of modernity. Weber has also grasped, according to Bauman, the inconclusiveness of the rationalization process and called attention to a future, which is different from that prefigured by the modernity project. Bauman is accordingly not entirely consistent in considering Weber a sociologist of modernity. It has also been argued here that the scope of Du Gay's critique of Bauman's interpretation of Weber should be extended, as there are for Weber several aspects of modern society that are not compatible with instrumental rationality. In particular, Weber has dwelt on value-rational aspects of modernity — such as the persistence of the values of solidarity and honour in the market, in the workers' unions, and in the bourgeoisie as a status group—which Bauman has neglected to consider.
{"title":"On Bauman's Interpretation of Weber","authors":"Sandro Segre","doi":"10.15543/MWS/2016/1/8","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15543/MWS/2016/1/8","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract:This article provides a re-assessment of Bauman's interpretation of Weber. It refers to this end to Du Gay's critique, which came out in the late 1980s and called into question the accuracy of Bauman's interpretation of Weber as contained in Modernity and the Holocaust. Du Gay objects of Bauman that Weber's ideal type of modern bureaucratic organizations is not incompatible with ethical considerations, and Bauman has therefore misrepresented Weber. The article dwells on and evaluates this objection also in the light of this work, and other and more recent works by Bauman. Bauman has consistently praised Weber for his ability to understand the modern condition, and Bauman considers him as a sociologist of the modern age, but also as an academic outsider. Weber could therefore understand better than other scholars that ‘lighter’ (rather than ‘heavy’) modalities of the capitalist order are conceivable. ‘Lighter capitalism’ is however a trait of Bauman's conception of post modernity (which this article briefly considers), rather than of modernity. Weber has also grasped, according to Bauman, the inconclusiveness of the rationalization process and called attention to a future, which is different from that prefigured by the modernity project. Bauman is accordingly not entirely consistent in considering Weber a sociologist of modernity. It has also been argued here that the scope of Du Gay's critique of Bauman's interpretation of Weber should be extended, as there are for Weber several aspects of modern society that are not compatible with instrumental rationality. In particular, Weber has dwelt on value-rational aspects of modernity — such as the persistence of the values of solidarity and honour in the market, in the workers' unions, and in the bourgeoisie as a status group—which Bauman has neglected to consider.","PeriodicalId":103306,"journal":{"name":"Max Weber Studies","volume":"41 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130183916","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 : 2022-01-01DOI: 10.15543/MWS/2009/1-2/10
Rita Aldenhoff-Hübinger
Abstract:Weber's lectures from the 1890s are described as is the work of editing them for the Max Weber Gesamtausgabe. Weber's career is outlined for this period and the history of the lecture manuscripts and why they have remained unknown until very recently. Weber's way of organising his lecture materials is outlined, offering a new reading of Max Weber.
{"title":"The Editing of Max Weber's Lectures from 1894 to 1900: An Interim Report","authors":"Rita Aldenhoff-Hübinger","doi":"10.15543/MWS/2009/1-2/10","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15543/MWS/2009/1-2/10","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract:Weber's lectures from the 1890s are described as is the work of editing them for the Max Weber Gesamtausgabe. Weber's career is outlined for this period and the history of the lecture manuscripts and why they have remained unknown until very recently. Weber's way of organising his lecture materials is outlined, offering a new reading of Max Weber.","PeriodicalId":103306,"journal":{"name":"Max Weber Studies","volume":"36 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"117222020","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":"Obituary: Professor Dr DLitt (h.c.) Wolfgang J. Mommsen 5 November, 1930-11 August, 2004","authors":"Gangolf Hübinger","doi":"10.15543/MWS/2005/1/6","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15543/MWS/2005/1/6","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":103306,"journal":{"name":"Max Weber Studies","volume":"32 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125473626","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:Max Weber's Amerikabild, his 'picture' of the United States, was first shaped by the 1848 exile Friedrich Kapp (1824–1884), a leader of the German Republicans in New York, who after his return in 1870 became a close family friend and a paternal mentor. The first section sketches the relations between Friedrich Kapp and Max Weber senior, and also their sons, in the context of the global economic developments before the First World War. The second deals with the Webers' German-American and German-Jewish contacts in New York, the third with their meeting the Lichtensteins, Kapp daughters and sons-in-law. This served Max as a sounding board for evaluating the tensions between Yankee religious tradition, secularization and assimilation (section 4). Finally, I will turn to the fates of three generations of American and German Kapp descendants, a story of German-Jewish relations on both sides of the Atlantic. This completed a cycle of exile and emigration from the 1848ers to the refugees from Nazi Germany. If with decreasing intensity, relations with the Weber family continued into the 1930s.
{"title":"Transatlantic Connections: A Cosmopolitan Context for Max and Marianne Weber's New York Visit 1904","authors":"G. Roth","doi":"10.15543/MWS/2005/1/5","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15543/MWS/2005/1/5","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract:Max Weber's Amerikabild, his 'picture' of the United States, was first shaped by the 1848 exile Friedrich Kapp (1824–1884), a leader of the German Republicans in New York, who after his return in 1870 became a close family friend and a paternal mentor. The first section sketches the relations between Friedrich Kapp and Max Weber senior, and also their sons, in the context of the global economic developments before the First World War. The second deals with the Webers' German-American and German-Jewish contacts in New York, the third with their meeting the Lichtensteins, Kapp daughters and sons-in-law. This served Max as a sounding board for evaluating the tensions between Yankee religious tradition, secularization and assimilation (section 4). Finally, I will turn to the fates of three generations of American and German Kapp descendants, a story of German-Jewish relations on both sides of the Atlantic. This completed a cycle of exile and emigration from the 1848ers to the refugees from Nazi Germany. If with decreasing intensity, relations with the Weber family continued into the 1930s.","PeriodicalId":103306,"journal":{"name":"Max Weber Studies","volume":"23 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"116539347","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:The social reform, theological and political backgrounds of R.H. Tawney and Max Weber are compared. These background influences are traced in respect to Religion and the Rise of Capitalism and The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. Troeltsch's account of Protestantism and progress is considered. Weber's view of Puritanism and capitalism is considered as particularistic in terms of validity even though modern capitalism would seem to be universalizable. In contrast, Troeltsch and Tawney are seen as arguing for a more universal image of Protestantism.
{"title":"R.H. Tawney, Ernst Troeltsch and Max Weber on Puritanism and Capitalism","authors":"S. Whimster","doi":"10.15543/MWS/2005/2/8","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15543/MWS/2005/2/8","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract:The social reform, theological and political backgrounds of R.H. Tawney and Max Weber are compared. These background influences are traced in respect to Religion and the Rise of Capitalism and The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. Troeltsch's account of Protestantism and progress is considered. Weber's view of Puritanism and capitalism is considered as particularistic in terms of validity even though modern capitalism would seem to be universalizable. In contrast, Troeltsch and Tawney are seen as arguing for a more universal image of Protestantism.","PeriodicalId":103306,"journal":{"name":"Max Weber Studies","volume":"20 2 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"126945983","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 German Idea of Democracy","authors":"Gangolf H�binger","doi":"10.1353/max.2022.0005","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/max.2022.0005","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":103306,"journal":{"name":"Max Weber Studies","volume":"144 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"123269975","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:Wolfgang Mommsen noted that Weber, despite his rejection of any philosophy of history, implicitly advanced one of his own. This article explores one aspect of this philosophy: the teleology of a unique Western history, which serves as a grid in terms of which other histories are read. In effect, other histories are considered in terms of what the West had and they lacked: a sociology of absence. The City discussed one crucial link in this teleology of the West. I consider this essay in relation to the Islamic city, and how Weber characterized it in different parts of his essay, in contrast with the Western city. I argue that Weber essentialized Islam, like he did China and India, in ways which eliminated history and geography and their considerable range of variation, in favour of implicit 'ideal types'. The consequences are explored in relation to themes at different points in the history of Muslim cities.
{"title":"Max Weber's \"The City\" and the Islamic City","authors":"S. Zubaida","doi":"10.15543/MWS/2006/1/5","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15543/MWS/2006/1/5","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract:Wolfgang Mommsen noted that Weber, despite his rejection of any philosophy of history, implicitly advanced one of his own. This article explores one aspect of this philosophy: the teleology of a unique Western history, which serves as a grid in terms of which other histories are read. In effect, other histories are considered in terms of what the West had and they lacked: a sociology of absence. The City discussed one crucial link in this teleology of the West. I consider this essay in relation to the Islamic city, and how Weber characterized it in different parts of his essay, in contrast with the Western city. I argue that Weber essentialized Islam, like he did China and India, in ways which eliminated history and geography and their considerable range of variation, in favour of implicit 'ideal types'. The consequences are explored in relation to themes at different points in the history of Muslim cities.","PeriodicalId":103306,"journal":{"name":"Max Weber Studies","volume":"66 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"121116764","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:In their Führerdemokratie Max and Alfred Weber assigned the key decision-making influence to an oligarchical elite of political leaders, in the caesarist version of Max's conception also to a 'plebiscitary dictator'. In Max's view, the leaders should be appointed by a party apparatus, win the elections through their charisma and distribute power, posts and profits to their followers. In Alfred's version, the voters were directly involved in the selection of the leaders. According to Max, the individual was in an 'iron cage', bound by command and obedience and at the mercy of political authority and bureaucracy. Alfred rather considered the individual as a 'person destined for freedom' and sought ways to release him from the economic, social and political pressures of modern life. A quantitative keyword content analysis of two relevant texts confirms that Max's conception of political will was based on power and force, while Alfred set store by freedom, human rights and political self-determination.Both brothers criticized the weak role played by the Reichstag in German politics; they demanded a parliamentarization that should lead to a better selection of political leaders. However, after the Revolution Max advocated the direct plebiscitary election of a strong Reich President who should keep in check the power of the Reichstag. Alfred rejected this and advocated a chancellor democracy.Before the war Max propagated a German imperialist policy and a naval rearmament in order to maintain the export of German industrial products. Alfred refused this strategy and favoured the establishment of larger economic areas without customs barriers. During the First World War, both conceptions merged in the project of 'Mitteleuropa', a union of semi-independent states in Central and Eastern Europe under the political, military and economic control of the German Führernation (Alfred Weber) respectively Herrenvolk (Max Weber). In conclusion, the differences between the sociological concepts of the brothers are summed up as 'Sociology of Power' (Max Weber) versus 'Sociology of Freedom' (Alfred Weber).
{"title":"Max and Alfred Weber II: From Führerdemokratie to Führernation A Comparative Synthesis of Their Political Sociology","authors":"E. Demm","doi":"10.1353/max.2022.0002","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/max.2022.0002","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract:In their Führerdemokratie Max and Alfred Weber assigned the key decision-making influence to an oligarchical elite of political leaders, in the caesarist version of Max's conception also to a 'plebiscitary dictator'. In Max's view, the leaders should be appointed by a party apparatus, win the elections through their charisma and distribute power, posts and profits to their followers. In Alfred's version, the voters were directly involved in the selection of the leaders. According to Max, the individual was in an 'iron cage', bound by command and obedience and at the mercy of political authority and bureaucracy. Alfred rather considered the individual as a 'person destined for freedom' and sought ways to release him from the economic, social and political pressures of modern life. A quantitative keyword content analysis of two relevant texts confirms that Max's conception of political will was based on power and force, while Alfred set store by freedom, human rights and political self-determination.Both brothers criticized the weak role played by the Reichstag in German politics; they demanded a parliamentarization that should lead to a better selection of political leaders. However, after the Revolution Max advocated the direct plebiscitary election of a strong Reich President who should keep in check the power of the Reichstag. Alfred rejected this and advocated a chancellor democracy.Before the war Max propagated a German imperialist policy and a naval rearmament in order to maintain the export of German industrial products. Alfred refused this strategy and favoured the establishment of larger economic areas without customs barriers. During the First World War, both conceptions merged in the project of 'Mitteleuropa', a union of semi-independent states in Central and Eastern Europe under the political, military and economic control of the German Führernation (Alfred Weber) respectively Herrenvolk (Max Weber). In conclusion, the differences between the sociological concepts of the brothers are summed up as 'Sociology of Power' (Max Weber) versus 'Sociology of Freedom' (Alfred Weber).","PeriodicalId":103306,"journal":{"name":"Max Weber Studies","volume":"33 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"114982695","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}
T. Ishida, H. Orihara, Yukitaka Sasabe, K. Sumiya, Kenichi Tominaga, Y. Uchida, Yasutoshi Ueyama, Y. Yano, Katsuhiko Yoshime
{"title":"In Memory of Professor Wolfgang J. Mommsen","authors":"T. Ishida, H. Orihara, Yukitaka Sasabe, K. Sumiya, Kenichi Tominaga, Y. Uchida, Yasutoshi Ueyama, Y. Yano, Katsuhiko Yoshime","doi":"10.15543/MWS/2005/1/8","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15543/MWS/2005/1/8","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":103306,"journal":{"name":"Max Weber Studies","volume":"10 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"114741742","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}
The Max Weber Gesamtausgabe, which started publication in 1984, has been brought to a successful completion in June 2020. In total it comprises 45 hefty volumes—some of which are divided into half volumes— and two index volumes. The first Section of the Gesamtausgabe has published all the known writings and lectures, and the second Section has published all the letters that have come down to us. The third Section has documented the various lecture courses that Max Weber gave at the universities of Freiburg im Breisgau, Heidelberg and Munich over the period 1894 to 1920.2 Behind these numbers lies a long history and, above all, a huge amount of work by the Gesamtausgabe editors, by the editors and their assistants of the individual volumes, and, in addition, the permanent office of the general redaction of the Gesamtausgabe, which has been based in the Bavarian Academy of Sciences and without
{"title":"On the Conclusion of the Max Weber Gesamtausgabe: A meta-critical Review","authors":"Klaus Lichtblau, S. Whimster","doi":"10.1353/max.2022.0004","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/max.2022.0004","url":null,"abstract":"The Max Weber Gesamtausgabe, which started publication in 1984, has been brought to a successful completion in June 2020. In total it comprises 45 hefty volumes—some of which are divided into half volumes— and two index volumes. The first Section of the Gesamtausgabe has published all the known writings and lectures, and the second Section has published all the letters that have come down to us. The third Section has documented the various lecture courses that Max Weber gave at the universities of Freiburg im Breisgau, Heidelberg and Munich over the period 1894 to 1920.2 Behind these numbers lies a long history and, above all, a huge amount of work by the Gesamtausgabe editors, by the editors and their assistants of the individual volumes, and, in addition, the permanent office of the general redaction of the Gesamtausgabe, which has been based in the Bavarian Academy of Sciences and without","PeriodicalId":103306,"journal":{"name":"Max Weber Studies","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"114408308","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：