Editing Max Weber (section)

==Theories==
===Rationalisation===
{{Main|Rationalisation (sociology)}}

Rati scholarship.{{sfnm|1a1=Kim|1y=2022|2a1=Ritzer|2y=2009|2p=30|3a1=Allan|3y=2005|3p=151}} This theme was situated in the larger context of the relationship between [[psychological]] motivations, cultural values, cultural beliefs, and the structure of the society.{{sfn|Allan|2005|p=148}} Weber understood rationalisation as having resulted in increasing knowledge, growing impersonality, and the enhanced control of social and material life.{{sfnm|1a1=Kim|1y=2022|2a1=Gane|2y=2002|2pp=24–26|3a1=Allan|3y=2005|3p=151}} He was ambivalent towards rationalisation. Weber admitted that it was responsible for many advances, particularly freeing humans from traditional, restrictive, and illogical social guidelines. However, he also criticised it for dehumanising individuals as "cogs in the machine" and curtailing their freedom, trapping them in the [[iron cage]] of rationality and bureaucracy.{{sfnm|1a1=Kim|1y=2022|2a1=Ritzer|2y=2009|2pp=38–42|3a1=Allan|3y=2005|3p=177}} His studies of the subject began with ''[[The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism]]''.{{sfnm|1a1=Radkau|1y=2009|1pp=191–192}} In it, he argued that [[Protestantism]]'s{{snd}}particularly [[Calvinism]]'s{{snd}}redefinition of the connection between work and piety caused a shift towards rational efforts that were aimed at achieving economic gain.{{sfnm|1a1=Bendix|1a2=Roth|1y=1977|1pp=57–61|2a1=Allan|2y=2005|2p=162}} In Protestantism, [[piety]] towards God was expressed through one's secular vocation.{{sfn|Allan|2005|p=162}} The religious principles that influenced the creation of capitalism became unnecessary and it became able to propagate itself without them.{{sfnm|1a1=Radkau|1y=2009|1pp=186–190|2a1=Weber|2y=2013|2p=124|3a1=Baehr|3y=2001|3pp=153–154}}

{{quote box
| width = 30em
| quote = What Weber depicted was not only the secularisation of Western ''culture'', but also and especially the development of modern ''societies'' from the viewpoint of rationalisation. The new structures of society were marked by the differentiation of the two functionally intermeshing systems that had taken shape around the organisational cores of the capitalist enterprise and the bureaucratic state apparatus. Weber understood this process as the institutionalisation of purposive-rational economic and administrative action. To the degree that everyday life was affected by this cultural and societal rationalisation, traditional forms of life{{snd}}which in the early modern period were differentiated primarily according to one's trade{{snd}}were dissolved.
| source = —[[Jürgen Habermas]] in ''The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity: Twelve Lectures'', 1990.{{sfn|Habermas|1990|pp=1–2}}
}}

Weber continued his investigation into this matter in later works, notably in his studies on [[bureaucracy]] and on the classification of legitimate [[authority]] into three ideal types{{snd}}[[Rational-legal authority|rational-legal]], [[Traditional authority|traditional]], and [[Charismatic authority|charismatic]]{{snd}}of which rational-legal was the dominant one in the modern world.{{sfnm|1a1=Kim|1y=2022|2a1=Weber|2y=2004|2pp=l–li|3a1=Gane|3y=2002|3pp=23–26}} In these works, Weber described what he saw as society's movement towards rationalisation.{{sfnm|1a1=Kim|1y=2022|2a1=Macionis|2y=2012|2p=88}} Bureaucratic states justified themselves through their own rationality and were supported by expert knowledge which made them rational.{{sfn|Gane|2002|pp=23–26}} Rationalisation could also be seen in the economy, with the development of a highly rational and calculating capitalism. Capitalism's rationality related to its basis in calculation, which separated it from alternative forms of economic organisation.{{sfnm|1a1=Kim|1y=2022|2a1=Radkau|2y=2009|2pp=187–189}} State bureaucracy and capitalism served as the twin pillars of the developing rational society. These changes eliminated the preexisting traditions that relied on the trades.{{sfn|Habermas|1990|pp=1–2}} Weber also saw rationalisation as one of the main factors that set the West apart from the rest of the world.{{sfnm|1a1=Kim|1y=2022|2a1=Habermas|2y=1990|2pp=1–2}} Furthermore, ''The Rational and Social Foundations of Music'' represented his application of rationalisation to music.{{sfnm|1a1=Boehmer|1y=2001|1pp=277–278|2a1=Kaesler|2y=2014|2p=70|3a1=Radkau|3y=2009|3pp=367–368}} It was influenced by his affair with the pianist {{Interlanguage link|Mina Tobler|de}} and a sense that [[Western culture#Music|Western music]] was the only type that had become harmonic, while other cultures' music was more intense and focused on hearing.{{sfnm|1a1=Radkau|1y=2009|1pp=367–368|2a1=Kaesler|2y=2014|2pp=702–703}} Weber argued that music was becoming increasingly rational. In his view, that resulted from new developments in musical instrument construction and simultaneous socio-economic shifts of the different instruments' players.{{sfnm|1a1=Kaesler|1y=2014|1pp=703–704|2a1=Boehmer|2y=2001|2pp=277–278}}

===Disenchantment===
{{Main|Disenchantment}}

The process of disenchantment caused the world to become more explained and less mystical, moving from [[polytheistic]] religions to [[monotheistic]] ones and finally to the Godless science of [[modernity]].{{sfnm|1a1=Kim|1y=2022|2a1=Gane|2y=2002|2pp=16–23}} Older explanations of why events occurred relied on the belief in supernatural interference in the material world. Due to disenchantment, this gave way to rational and scientific explanations for events.{{sfnm|1a1=Swedberg|1a2=Agevall|1y=2016|1pp=86–87|2a1=Gane|2y=2002|2pp=16–17}} According to the ''[[Sociology of Religion (book)|Sociology of Religion]]'' religious activity began with actions in the material world that people associated with vague spirits and gave magical meanings to. Over time, these magical beliefs became increasingly systemised and the spirits became gods that were represented by symbols.{{sfnm|1a1=Gane|1y=2002|1pp=16–17|2a1=Allan|2y=2005|2pp=154–156}} This increasing theological systemisation resulted in polytheism and [[organised religion]].{{sfnm|1a1=Gane|1y=2002|1pp=16–17|2a1=Allan|2y=2005|2pp=157–158}} Increasing rationality caused the development of Western monotheism, which resulted in groups focusing on specific gods for political and economic purposes, creating a universal religion.{{sfnm|1a1=Gane|1y=2002|1pp=16–17|2a1=Allan|2y=2005|2pp=151–152}} According to Weber, Protestantism encouraged an increased pursuit of rationality that led to the devaluing of itself.{{sfnm|1a1=Gane|1y=2002|1pp=17–23|2a1=Allan|2y=2005|2pp=151–152|3a1=Kim|3y=2022}} In turn, this devaluation led to [[nihilism]] through its destruction of unifying values.{{sfnm|1a1=Gane|1y=2002|1pp=21–23|2a1=Kim|2y=2022|3a1=Allan|3y=2005|3pp=151–152}}

===''The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism''===
{{Main|The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism}}

{{quote box
| width = 30em
| quote = The development of the concept of the calling quickly gave to the modern entrepreneur a fabulously clear conscience{{snd}}and also industrious workers; he gave to his employees as the wages of their ascetic devotion to the calling and of co-operation in his ruthless exploitation of them through capitalism the prospect of eternal salvation.
| source = —Max Weber in ''The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism'', 1905.{{sfn|Allan|2005|p=162}}
}}

''The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism'' is Weber's most famous work.{{sfnm|1a1=Weber|1y=1999|1p=22–23|2a1=Bendix|2a2=Roth|2y=1977|2pp=49–50}} It was his first work on how religions affected economic systems' development.{{sfnm|1a1=Bendix|1a2=Roth|1y=1977|1pp=49–50|2a1=Weber|2y=1999|2p=8}} In the book, he put forward the thesis that the [[Protestant work ethic]], which was derived from the theological ideas of the [[Reformation]], influenced the development of capitalism.{{sfnm|1a1=Ritzer|1y=2009|1pp=35–37|2a1=Bendix|2a2=Roth|2y=1977|2pp=57–59}} Weber was looking for [[Elective_Affinities#References_in_culture_and_theory|elective affinities]] between the Protestant work ethic and capitalism.{{sfnm|1a1=Radkau|1y=2009|1pp=96, 193|2a1=Bendix|2a2=Roth|2y=1977|2pp=63–64}} He argued that the Puritans' [[Vocation|religious calling]] to work caused them to systematically obtain wealth.{{sfn|Weber|2013|p=xviii}} They wished to prove that they were members of the elect who were destined to go to Heaven.{{sfnm|1a1=Weber|1y=2013|1pp=xxxii–xxxiii|2a1=Turner|2y=2001b|2p=16403}} Weber used [[Benjamin Franklin]]'s personal ethic, as described in his "[[Advice to a Young Tradesman]]", as an example of the Protestant sects' economic ethic.{{sfnm|1a1=Weber|1y=2013|1p=xviii|2a1=Radkau|2y=2009|2pp=195–197}} Both [[Rationalization (sociology)|rationalisation]] and the [[ideal type]], concepts that later became central to his scholarship, appeared in the thesis.{{sfn|Radkau|2009|pp=191–192}} Rationalisation caused the West to be trapped in the {{Lang|de|[[Iron cage|stahlhartes Gehäuse]]}} ("iron cage" or "steel-hard casing") that was the modern capitalist economic order.{{sfnm|1a1=Radkau|1y=2009|1pp=186–190|2a1=Weber|2y=2013|2p=124|3a1=Baehr|3y=2001|3pp=153–154}} Meanwhile, ideal types were representative figures, or case studies, that represented concepts.{{sfnm|1a1=Radkau|1y=2009|1pp=191–192|2a1=Weber|2y=2013|2pp=xlvii–l|3a1=Kim|3y=2022}}

Christian religious devotion was historically accompanied by the rejection of mundane affairs, including economic pursuit.{{sfn|Bendix|Roth|1977|p=57}} Weber argued that the origin of modern capitalism was in the religious ideas of the Reformation.{{sfnm|1a1=Bendix|1a2=Roth|1y=1977|1pp=55–58|2a1=Weber|2y=2013|2p=xxviii}} According to him, certain types of Protestantism{{snd}}notably [[Calvinism]]{{snd}}were supportive of the rational pursuit of economic gain and the worldly activities that were dedicated to it, seeing those activities as having been endowed with moral and spiritual significance.{{sfnm|1a1=Bendix|1a2=Roth|1y=1977|1pp=60–61|2a1=Weber|2y=2013|2p=xxx}} The spirit of capitalism was found in the desire to work hard in a way that pleased the worker and signified their worth and originally had a basis in theology.{{sfnm|1a1=Ritzer|1y=2009|1pp=35–37|2a1=Bendix|2a2=Roth|2y=1977|2pp=55–58}} In particular, the Protestant work ethic motivated the believers to work hard, be successful in business, and reinvest their profits in further development rather than frivolous pleasures.{{sfnm|1a1=Ritzer|1y=2009|1pp=35–37|2a1=Bendix|2a2=Roth|2y=1977|2pp=60–63}} Weber thought that self-restraint, hard work, and a belief that wealth could be a sign of salvation were representative of [[ascetic]] Protestantism. Ascetic Protestants practiced [[inner-worldly asceticism]] and sought to change the world to better reflect their beliefs.{{sfn|Swedberg|Agevall|2016|pp=10–12}} The notion of a religious calling, when combined with [[predestination]], meant that each individual had to take action to prove their [[salvation]] to themselves.{{sfnm|1a1=Weber|1y=2013|1pp=xviii, xxxii–xxxiii|2a1=Allan|2y=2005|2pp=162–163|3a1=Bendix|3a2=Roth|3y=1977|3pp=58–61}} However, the success that these religious principles created ultimately removed them as an influence on modern capitalism as a result of its creation of a worldly perspective. As a result, the inheritors of that system were entrapped in a socioeconomic iron cage.{{sfnm|1a1=Radkau|1y=2009|1pp=186–190|2a1=Weber|2y=2013|2p=124|3a1=Baehr|3y=2001|3pp=153–154}}

===''The Economic Ethics of the World Religions''===
{{Main|The Economic Ethics of the World Religions}}

Weber's work in the field of [[sociology of religion]] began with the book ''[[The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism]]''.{{sfnm|1a1=Bendix|1a2=Roth|1y=1977|1pp=49–50|2a1=Weber|2y=1999|2p=8|3a1=Swedberg|3a2=Agevall|3y=2016|3pp=94–96}} It continued with the book series ''The Economic Ethics of the World Religions'', which contained ''[[The Religion of China]]'', ''[[The Religion of India]]'', and ''[[Ancient Judaism (book)|Ancient Judaism]]''.{{sfnm|1a1=Schluchter|1y=2018|1pp=87–89|2a1=Bellah|2y=1999|2p=280|3a1=Swedberg|3a2=Agevall|3y=2016|3pp=94–96}} However, his work was left incomplete as a result of his sudden death in 1920, which prevented him from following ''Ancient Judaism'' with studies of early Christianity and Islam.{{sfnm|1a1=Bendix|1a2=Roth|1y=1977|1p=285|2a1=Bellah|2y=1999|2p=280|3a1=Swedberg|3a2=Agevall|3y=2016|3pp=94–96}} The three main themes within the books were: religious ideas' effect on economic activities, the relationship between [[social stratification]] and religious ideas, and the distinguishable characteristics of [[Western culture|Western civilisation]].{{sfn|Bendix|Roth|1977|p=285}} His goal was to find reasons for the different developmental paths of the cultures of the [[Western world]] and the [[Eastern world]], without making value-judgements, unlike the contemporaneous [[Social Darwinism|social Darwinist]]s. Weber simply wanted to explain the distinctive elements of Western civilisation.{{sfnm|1a1=Bendix|1a2=Roth|1y=1977|1p=285|2a1=Kim|2y=2022}} Weber also proposed a [[Sociocultural evolution|socio-evolutionary]] model of religious change where societies moved from magic to [[ethical monotheism]], with the intermediatory steps of [[polytheism]], [[pantheism]], and [[monotheism]]. According to him, this was the result of growing economic stability, which allowed for [[professionalisation]] and the evolution of an increasingly sophisticated priesthood.{{sfn|Allan|2005|pp=154–155}} As societies grew more complex and encompassed different groups, a hierarchy of gods developed. Meanwhile, as their power became more centralised, the concept of a universal God became more popular and desirable.{{sfn|Allan|2005|p=158}}

====''The Religion of China''====
{{Main|The Religion of China}}

In ''The Religion of China: Confucianism and Taoism'', Weber focused on those aspects of Chinese society that were different from those of Western Europe, especially those aspects that contrasted with [[Puritans#Beliefs|Puritanism]]. As part of that, he questioned why capitalism had not developed in China.{{sfnm|1a1=Bendix|1a2=Roth|1y=1977|1pp=114–116|2a1=Radkau|2y=2009|2pp=477–478|3a1=Whimster|3y=2007|3pp=134–135, 212}} He focused on the issues of Chinese urban development, Chinese [[patrimonialism]] and officialdom and [[Religion in China|Chinese religion]] and [[Chinese philosophy|philosophy]]{{snd}}primarily [[Confucianism]] and [[Taoism]]{{snd}}as the areas in which Chinese development significantly differed from the European route.{{sfnm|1a1=Bendix|1a2=Roth|1y=1977|1pp=98–99|2a1=Schluchter|2y=2014|2pp=12–13}} According to Weber, Confucianism and Puritanism were superficially similar, but were actually largely different from one another.{{sfnm|1a1=Bendix|1a2=Roth|1y=1977|1pp=135–141|2a1=Whimster|2y=2007|2pp=134–135|3a1=Schluchter|3y=2014|3p=19}} Instead, they were mutually exclusive types of [[Rationalization (sociology)|rational thought]], each attempting to prescribe a way of life based on religious dogma.{{sfnm|1a1=Bendix|1a2=Roth|1y=1977|1pp=135–141|2a1=Schluchter|2y=2014|2p=19}} Notably, they both valued self-control and restraint and did not oppose accumulation of wealth. However, both of those qualities were simply means to different final goals.{{sfnm|1a1=Ritzer|1y=2009|1pp=37–38|2a1=Bendix|2a2=Roth|2y=1977|2pp=135–141}} Confucianism's goal was "a cultured status position", while Puritanism's goal was to create individuals who were "tools of God". According to Weber, the Puritans sought rational control of the world and rejected its irrationality while Confucians sought rational acceptance of that state of affairs.{{sfnm|1a1=Bendix|1a2=Roth|1y=1977|1pp=135–141|2a1=Schluchter|2y=2014|2p=19|3a1=Whimster|3y=2007|3p=188}} Therefore, he stated that it was the difference in social attitudes and mentality, shaped by the respective dominant religions, that contributed to the development of capitalism in the West and the absence of it in China.{{sfnm|1a1=Bendix|1a2=Roth|1y=1977|1pp=135–141|2a1=Schluchter|2y=2014|2pp=23–25}}

====''The Religion of India''====
{{Main|The Religion of India}}

In ''The Religion of India: The Sociology of Hinduism and Buddhism'', Weber dealt with the structure of Indian society, with the [[Orthodoxy|orthodox]] doctrines of [[Hinduism]] and the [[Heterodoxy|heterodox]] doctrines of [[Buddhism]], with modifications brought by the influence of popular religiosity and finally with the impact of religious beliefs on the secular ethic of Indian society.{{sfnm|1a1=Bendix|1a2=Roth|1y=1977|1pp=142–158|2a1=Schluchter|2y=2018|2pp=98–99}} In Weber's view, Hinduism in India, like Confucianism in China, was a barrier for capitalism.{{sfnm|1a1=Ritzer|1y=2009|1pp=37–38|2a1=Thapar|2y=2018|2pp=123–125}} The [[Caste system in India|Indian caste system]], which developed in post-Classical India and served as the source for legitimate social interactions, served as a key part of that. Both Hinduism and the [[Brahmin]]s' high status upheld the caste system. The Brahmins used their monopoly on education and theological authority to maintain their position, while Hinduism created a psychological justification for it in the form of the cycle of [[reincarnation]].{{sfn|Kalberg|2017|pp=238–240}} A person's position in the caste order was thought to have been determined by one's actions in their past life.{{sfnm|1a1=Ritzer|1y=2009|1p=35|2a1=Gellner|2y=1982|2pp=535–537|3a1=Kalberg|3y=2017|3p=240}} As a result, advancement of the [[soul]] and obeying the predetermined order were more important than seeking advancement in the material world, including economic advancement.{{sfnm|1a1=Ritzer|1y=2009|1p=35|2a1=Weber|2a2=Turner|2y=2014|2p=396|3a1=Kalberg|3y=2017|3p=240}}

Weber ended his research of society and religion in India by bringing in insights from his previous work on China to discuss the similarities of the Asian belief systems.{{sfnm|1a1=Bendix|1a2=Roth|1y=1977|1pp=198–199|2a1=Schluchter|2y=2018|2pp=101–102}} He noted that these religions' believers used otherworldly [[Religious experience|mystical experience]]s to interpret the meaning of life.{{sfnm|1a1=Bendix|1a2=Roth|1y=1977|1pp=198–199|2a1=Schluchter|2y=2018|2pp=92–93}} The social world was fundamentally divided between the educated elite who followed the guidance of a [[prophet]] or wise man and the uneducated masses whose beliefs are centered on magic. In Asia, there were no [[messianic prophecies]] to give both educated and uneducated followers meaning in their regular lives.{{sfn|Bendix|Roth|1977|pp=198–199}} Weber juxtaposed such Messianic prophecies, notably from the [[Near East]], with the exemplary prophecies found in mainland Asia that focused more on reaching to the educated elites and enlightening them on the proper ways to live one's life, usually with little emphasis on hard work and the material world.{{sfnm|1a1=Bendix|1a2=Roth|1y=1977|1pp=90, 198–199|2a1=Schluchter|2y=2018|2p=98}} It was those differences that prevented Western countries from following the paths of the earlier Chinese and Indian civilisations. His next work, ''Ancient Judaism'', was an attempt to prove this theory.{{sfnm|1a1=Bendix|1a2=Roth|1y=1977|1pp=198–199|2a1=Schluchter|2y=2018|2pp=96–97|3a1=Kalberg|3y=2017|3p=237}}

====''Ancient Judaism''====
{{Main|Ancient Judaism (book)}}

In ''Ancient Judaism'', Weber attempted to explain the factors that resulted in the early differences between [[Eastern world|Eastern]] and [[Western world|Western]] [[religiosity]].{{sfn|Bendix|Roth|1977|pp=200–201}} He contrasted the innerworldly [[asceticism]] developed by Western Christianity with the mystical contemplation that developed in India.{{sfnm|1a1=Bendix|1a2=Roth|1y=1977|1pp=200–201|2a1=Kaesler|2y=1988|2p=127}} Weber noted that some aspects of Christianity sought to conquer and change the world, rather than withdraw from its imperfections.{{sfn|Bendix|Roth|1977|pp=200–201}} This fundamental characteristic of Christianity originally stemmed from ancient Jewish [[prophecy]].{{sfn|Bendix|Roth|1977|pp=204–205}} Weber classified the Jewish people as having been a pariah people, which meant that they were separated from the society that contained them.{{sfnm|1a1=Kaesler|1y=1988|1p=127|2a1=Bendix|2a2=Roth|2y=1977|2pp=200–201|3a1=Radkau|3y=2009|3pp=444–446}} He examined the ancient Jewish people's origins and social structures. In his view, the [[Israelites]] maintained order through a [[Covenant (biblical)|covenant]] with the war god [[Yahweh]] and the practice of warrior asceticism. Under [[Solomon]], that changed into a more organised and law-based society than the old confederation was. Religiously, the priests replaced the previous charismatic religious leaders. Weber thought that [[Elijah]] was the first prophet to have risen from the shepherds. Elijah promulgated political prophecies and opposed the [[Kings of Israel and Judah|monarchy]].{{sfnm|1a1=Kaesler|1y=1988|1pp=127–130|2a1=Bendix|2a2=Roth|2y=1977|2p=225}}

===Theodicy===
{{see also|Theodicy}}

Weber used the concept of theodicy in his interpretation of theology and religion throughout his corpus.{{sfnm|1a1=Adair-Toteff|1y=2013|1pp=87–90|2a1=Swedberg|2a2=Agevall|2y=2016|2pp=348–349|3a1=Turner|3y=1996|3p=149}} This involved both his scholarly and personal interests in the subject. It was central to his conception of humanity, which he interpreted as having been connected with finding meaning.{{sfn|Adair-Toteff|2013|pp=87–88}} Theodicy was a popular subject of study amongst German scholars who sought to determine how a world created by an [[omnibenevolent]] and [[omnipotent]] being can contain suffering. As part of this tradition, Weber was careful in his study of the subject.{{sfnm|1a1=Adair-Toteff|1y=2013|1pp=88–90|2a1=Turner|2y=1996|2pp=149–158}} Rather than interpreting it through a theological or ethical lens, he interpreted it through a social one.{{sfnm|1a1=Adair-Toteff|1y=2013|1pp=88–89|2a1=Turner|2y=1996|2p=149|3a1=Swedberg|3a2=Agevall|3y=2016|3p=347}} Furthermore, he incorporated [[Friedrich Nietzsche]]'s concept of {{Lang|fr|[[Ressentiment]]}} into his discussion of the topic. However, Weber disagreed with Nietzsche's emotional discussion of the topic and his interpretation of it as having been a Jewish-derived expression of [[Master–slave morality|slave morality]].{{sfnm|1a1=Adair-Toteff|1y=2013|1pp=99–102|2a1=Turner|2y=1996|2p=158}}

Weber divided theodicy into three main types:{{sfnm|1a1=Adair-Toteff|1y=2013|1pp=94–97|2a1=Turner|2y=1996|2pp=147–148|3a1=Swedberg|3a2=Agevall|3y=2016|3pp=347–348}}

# Persian dualism – God is not all powerful and misfortune comes from outside his power
# Indian doctrine of karma – God is not all powerful and misfortune comes from inside oneself
# Doctrine of predestination – Only a chosen few will be saved from damnation

Weber defined the importance of societal class within religion by examining the difference between the theodicies of fortune and misfortune and to what class structures they apply.{{sfnm|1a1=Swedberg|1a2=Agevall|1y=2016|1pp=347–348|2a1=Turner|2y=1996|2pp=163–164|3a1=Plye|3a2=Davidson|3y=1998|3pp=498–499}} The theodicy of fortune related to the desire of those who were successful to prove that they deserved it. They were also prone to not being satisfied with what they already had and wished to avoid the notion that they were illegitimate or sinful.{{sfnm|1a1=Turner|1y=1996|1pp=164–165|2a1=Swedberg|2a2=Agevall|2y=2016|2pp=347–348}} Those without the work ethic believed in the theodicy of misfortune, believing wealth and happiness were granted in the afterlife. Another example of how this belief of religious theodicy influenced class was that those of lower economic status tended towards deep religiousness and faith as a way to comfort themselves and provide hope for a more prosperous future, while those of higher economic status preferred the sacraments or actions that proved their right to possess greater wealth.{{sfnm|1a1=Plye|1a2=Davidson|1y=1998|1pp=498–499|2a1=Swedberg|2a2=Agevall|2y=2016|2pp=347–348|3a1=Turner|3y=1996|3pp=163–165}}

===The state, politics, and government===
{{See also|Max Weber and German politics}}

In [[political sociology]], one of Weber's most influential contributions is his lecture "[[Politics as a Vocation]]", in which he defined the [[State (polity)|state]] as an entity that was "[[Monopoly on violence|based on the legitimate use of force]]".{{sfnm|1a1=Weber|1y=2004|1p=34|2a1=Warner|2y=1991|2pp=9–10|3a1=Palonen|3y=2011|3pp=104–105}} Accordingly, Weber proposed that politics is the sharing of state power between various groups, whereas political leaders were those who wielded this power.{{sfn|Warner|1991|pp=9–10}} He divided action into the oppositional {{Lang|de|[[Ethic of ultimate ends|gesinnungsethik]]}} and ''{{Interlanguage link|verantwortungsethik|de}}'' (the "ethic of ultimate ends" and the "ethic of responsibility").{{sfnm|1a1=Weber|1y=2004|1p=xli|2a1=Swedberg|2a2=Agevall|2y=2016|2pp=121–123|3a1=Marlin|3y=2002|3pp=155}} An adherent of the {{Lang|de|verantwortungsethik}} justified their actions based on their consequences. Meanwhile, an adherent of the {{Lang|de|gesinnungsethik}} justified their actions based on their ideals.{{sfnm|1a1=Radkau|1y=2009|1pp=515–516|2a1=Marlin|2y=2002|2pp=155–156|3a1=Swedberg|3a2=Agevall|3y=2016|3pp=121–123}} While Weber thought that both of them would ideally be present in a politician, he associated them with different types of people and mindsets. These different types of people and mindsets reflected the [[Pacifism in Germany|pacifists]] and those who wanted to reverse Germany's defeat in the First World War, respectively.{{sfnm|1a1=Radkau|1y=2009|1pp=515–516|2a1=Marlin|2y=2002|2pp=155–156}}

Weber distinguished three [[ideal type]]s of legitimate authority:{{sfnm|1a1=Weber|1y=2004|1p=34|2a1=Bendix|2a2=Roth|2y=1977|2pp=294–296|3a1=Macionis|3y=2012|3p=88}}
# [[Charismatic authority]] – [[family|Familial]] and [[religion in politics|religious]]
# [[Traditional authority]] – [[Patriarchy]], [[patrimonialism]], [[feudalism]]
# [[Rational-legal authority]] – Modern law and state, [[bureaucracy]]

In his view, all historical relationships between rulers and ruled contained these elements, which could be analysed on the basis of this [[tripartite classification of authority]].{{sfnm|1a1=Bendix|1a2=Roth|1y=1977|1p=296|2a1=Swedberg|2a2=Agevall|2y=2016|2p=88}} Charismatic authority was held by extraordinary figures and was unstable, as it relied on the charismatic figure's success and resisted institutionalisation.{{sfnm|1a1=Swedberg|1a2=Agevall|1y=2016|1pp=34–35|2a1=Ritzer|2y=2009|2pp=37–41}} It was forced to be routinised into more structured forms of authority. An administrative structure would be formed by the charismatic leader's followers.{{sfnm|1a1=Ritzer|1y=2009|1pp=37–41|2a1=Swedberg|2a2=Agevall|2y=2016|2pp=34–35}} In an ideal type of traditional rule, sufficient resistance to a ruler led to a "traditional revolution".{{sfn|Bendix|Roth|1977|pp=303–305}} Traditional authority was based on loyalty to preestablished traditions and those who were placed into authority as a result of those traditions.{{sfnm|1a1=Swedberg|1a2=Agevall|1y=2016|1pp=352–353|2a1=Bendix|2a2=Roth|2y=1977|2pp=294–295}} Rational-legal authority relied on bureaucracy and belief in both the legality of the society's rules and the legitimacy of those who were placed into power as a result of those rules.{{sfnm|1a1=Swedberg|1a2=Agevall|1y=2016|1pp=187–188|2a1=Bendix|2a2=Roth|2y=1977|2p=294}} Unlike the other types of authority, it gradually developed. That was the result of legal systems ability to exist without charismatic individuals or traditions.{{sfn|Bendix|Roth|1977|pp=387–388}}

====Bureaucracy====
{{See also|Bureaucracy}}

Weber's commentary on societal bureaucratisation is one of the most prominent parts of his work.{{sfn|Swedberg|Agevall|2016|p=20}} According to him, bureaucracy was the most efficient method of societal organisation and the most formally rational system. It was necessary for modern society to function and would also be difficult to destroy.{{sfnm|1a1=Swedberg|1a2=Agevall|1y=2016|1pp=20–21|2a1=Bendix|2a2=Roth|2y=1977|2p=430}} Bureaucratic officials felt superior to non-bureaucrats, had a strong sense of duty, and had fixed salaries that caused them to be disinclined to pursue monetary acquisition. Bureaucracy was less likely to be found among elected officials.{{sfn|Swedberg|Agevall|2016|p=20}} Furthermore, Bureaucracy's treatment of all people without regard for individuals suited capitalism well.{{sfnm|1a1=Swedberg|1a2=Agevall|1y=2016|1p=21|2a1=Bendix|2a2=Roth|2y=1977|2pp=426–427}} It was also a requirement for both modern capitalism and modern socialism to exist.{{sfn|Swedberg|Agevall|2016|p=21}} This depersonalisation related to its increased efficiency. Bureaucrats could not openly make decisions arbitrarily or base them on personal favours.{{sfn|Bendix|Roth|1977|pp=427–428}} As the most efficient and rational way of organising, bureaucratisation was the key part of rational-legal authority. Furthermore, he saw it as the key process in the ongoing rationalisation of Western society.{{sfnm|1a1=Ritzer|1y=2009|1pp=38–42|2a1=Swedberg|2a2=Agevall|2y=2016|2pp=18–21}}

Weber listed six characteristics of an ideal type of bureaucracy:{{sfnm|1a1=Swedberg|1a2=Agevall|1y=2016|1p=20|2a1=Bendix|2a2=Roth|2y=1977|2p=424|3a1=Allan|3y=2005|3pp=173–174}}
# It was in a fixed area that was governed by rules
# Bureaucracies were hierarchical
# Its actions were based on written documents
# Expert training was required
# Bureaucrats were completely devoted to their work
# The system relied on basic rules that were learnable

The development of [[information and communications technology|communication]] and transportation technologies made more efficient administration possible and popularly requested. Meanwhile, the [[democratisation]] and rationalisation of culture resulted in demands that the new system treat everyone equally.{{sfn|Allan|2005|pp=172–173}} Weber's ideal type of bureaucracy was characterised by hierarchical organisation, delineated lines of authority in a fixed area of activity, action taken on the basis of written rules, bureaucratic officials needing expert training, rules being implemented neutrally, and career advancement depending on technical qualifications judged by organisations.{{sfnm|1a1=Swedberg|1a2=Agevall|1y=2016|1pp=20–21|2a1=Allan|2y=2005|2pp=173–174|3a1=Bendix|3a2=Roth|3y=1977|3p=424}} While arguing that bureaucracy was the most efficient form of organisation and was indispensable for the modern state, Weber was also critical of it. In his view, an inescapable bureaucratisation of society would happen in the future. He also thought that a hypothetical victory of socialism over capitalism would have not been able to prevent that.{{sfnm|1a1=Swedberg|1a2=Agevall|1y=2016|1pp=21–22|2a1=Ritzer|2y=2005|2p=55}} Economic and political organisations needed entrepreneurs and politicians in order to counteract bureaucrats. Otherwise, they would be stifled by bureaucracy.{{sfn|Swedberg|Agevall|2016|p=21}}

====Social stratification====
{{Main|Three-component theory of stratification}}

Weber also formulated a three-component theory of stratification that contained the conceptually distinct elements of social class, [[social status]], and political party.{{sfnm|1a1=Weber|1y=2015b|1pp=37–40|2a1=Parkin|2y=2013|2p=90}} This distinction was most clearly described in his essay "The Distribution of Power Within the {{Lang|de|Gemeinschaft}}: Classes, {{Lang|de|Stände}}, Parties", which was first published in his book ''Economy and Society''.{{sfn|Weber|2015b|pp=37–40}} Status served as one of the central ways in which people were ranked in society. As part of it, issues of honour and prestige were important.{{sfnm|1a1=Weber|1y=2015b|1pp=37–40|2a1=Bendix|2a2=Roth|2y=1977|2pp=85–87|3a1=Parkin|3y=2013|3pp=96–97}} With regards to class, the theory placed heavy emphasis on [[class conflict]] and [[private property]] as having been key to its definition.{{sfn|Parkin|2013|pp=91–96}} While Weber drew upon Marx's interpretation of class conflict in his definition of class, he did not see it as having defined all social relations and stratification.{{sfnm|1a1=Weber|1y=2015b|1pp=37–58|2a1=Parkin|2y=2013|2pp=92–93, 98|3a1=Bendix|3a2=Roth|3y=1977|3pp=85–87}} Political parties were not given as much attention by Weber as the other two components were, as he thought that they were not particularly effectual in their actions. Their purpose was to seek power to benefit their members materially or ideologically.{{sfnm|1a1=Parkin|1y=2013|1pp=104–108|2a1=Weber|2y=2015b|2pp=37–40|3a1=Swedberg|3a2=Agevall|3y=2016|3p=246}}

The three components of Weber's theory were:{{sfnm|1a1=Weber|1y=2015b|1pp=37–40|2a1=Parkin|2y=2013|2p=90}}
# Social class – Based on an economically determined relationship with the market
# Status ({{Langx|de|Stand|label=none}}) – Based on non-economic qualities such as honour and prestige
# Party – Affiliations in the political domain

This conceptualisation emerged from Weber's study of farm labour and the stock exchange, as he found social relationships that were unexplainable through economic class alone. The [[Junker (Prussia)|Junker]]s had social rules regarding marriage between different social levels and farm labourers had a strong sense of independence, neither of which was economically based.{{sfn|Bendix|Roth|1977}} Weber maintained a sharp distinction between the terms "status" and "class", although non-scholars tend to use them interchangeably in casual use.{{sfnm|1a1=Waters|1a2=Waters|1y=2016|1pp=1–2|2a1=Parkin|2y=2013|2pp=96–97}} Status and its focus on honour emerged from the {{Lang|de|[[Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft|Gemeinschaft]]}}, which denoted the part of society where loyalty originated from. Class emerged from the {{Lang|de|Gesellschaft}}, a subdivision of the {{Lang|de|Gemeinschaft}} that included rationally driven markets and legal organisation. Parties emerged from a combination of the two.{{sfn|Waters|Waters|2016|pp=1–2}} Weber interpreted [[life chances]], the opportunities to improve one's life, as having been a definitional aspect of class. It related to the differences in access to opportunities that different people might have had in their lives.{{sfnm|1a1=Swedberg|1a2=Agevall|1y=2016|1pp=41–42, 192|2a1=Waters|2a2=Waters|2y=2016|2pp=2–3}} The relationship between status and class was not straightforward. One of them could lead to the other, but an individual or group could have success in one but not the other.{{sfn|Parkin|2013|pp=104–108}}

===The vocation lectures===
{{Main|Science as a Vocation|Politics as a Vocation}}

Towards the end of his life, Weber gave two lectures, "Science as a Vocation" and "Politics as a Vocation", at the Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich that were on the subject of the scientific and political vocations. The Free Student Youth, a left-liberal student organisation, had {{Interlanguage link|Immanuel Birnbaum|de}} invite him to give the lectures.{{sfnm|1a1=Weber|1y=2004|1pp=xii–xxxiii|2a1=Radkau|2y=2009|2pp=487, 514}} In "Science as a Vocation", he argued that an inner calling was necessary for one to become a scholar. Weber thought that only a particular type of person was able to have an academic career. He used his own career as an example of that. Recalling his arguments regarding the Protestant work ethic, Weber stated that the path forward in scholarship required the scholar to understand the potential for a lack of success and be methodical in their research. Specialisation was also an aspect of modern scholarship that a scholar needed to engage in.{{sfnm|1a1=Radkau|1y=2009|1pp=487–491|2a1=Weber|2y=2004|2pp=xxv–xxix|3a1=Tribe|3y=2018|3pp=130–133}} [[Disenchantment]] and intellectual rationalisation were major aspects of his commentary on the scholar's role in modernity. These processes resulted in the value of scholarship being questioned. Weber argued that scholarship could provide certainty through its starting presumptions, despite its inability to give absolute answers.{{sfnm|1a1=Weber|1y=2004|1pp=xxx–xxxii|2a1=Gane|2y=2002|2pp=45–49|3a1=Tribe|3y=2018|3pp=131–132}} Meanwhile, "Politics as a Vocation" commented on the subject of politics.{{sfnm|1a1=Weber|1y=2004|1pp=xxxiv–xxxv|2a1=Radkau|2y=2009|2pp=514–515|3a1=Swedberg|3a2=Agevall|3y=2016|3pp=259–260}} Weber was responding to the early [[Weimar Republic]]'s political instability. He defined politics as having been divided into three aspects: passion, judgement, and responsibility. There was also a division between conviction and responsibility. While these two concepts were sharply divided, it was possible for single individual{{snd}}particularly the ideal politician{{snd}}to possess both of them.{{sfnm|1a1=Radkau|1y=2009|1pp=514–518|2a1=Weber|2y=2004|2pp=xxxiv–xxxviii|3a1=Gane|3y=2002|3pp=64–65}} He also divided legitimate authority into the three categories of [[Traditional authority|traditional]], [[Charismatic authority|charismatic]], and [[Rational-legal authority|rational-legal]] authority.{{sfnm|1a1=Weber|1y=2004|1pp=l–li|2a1=Bendix|2a2=Roth|2y=1977|2pp=294–295|3a1=Macionis|3y=2012|3p=88}} Towards the lecture's end, he described politics as having been "a slow, powerful drilling through hard boards".{{sfnm|1a1=Weber|1y=2004|1pp=93–94|2a1=Radkau|2y=2009|2pp=517–518|3a1=Swedberg|3a2=Agevall|3y=2016|3pp=259–260}} Ultimately, Weber thought that the political issues of his day required consistent effort to resolve, rather than the quick solutions that the students preferred.{{sfnm|1a1=Radkau|1y=2009|1pp=514–518|2a1=Weber|2y=2004|2pp=xxxiv–xxxviii}}

===''The City''===
{{Main|The City (Weber book)}}

{{quote box
| width = 30em
| quote = The origin of a rational and inner-worldly ethic is associated in the Occident with the appearance of thinkers and prophets{{spaces}}… who developed in a social context that was alien to the Asiatic cultures. This context consisted of the political problems engendered by the bourgeois status-group of the city, without which neither Judaism, nor Christianity, nor the development of Hellenistic thinking are conceivable.
| source = —Max Weber in ''The City'', 1921.{{sfn|Bendix|Roth|1977|pp=79}}
}}

As part of his overarching effort to understand the Western world's unique development, Weber wrote a general study of the European city and its development in [[Classical antiquity|antiquity]] and the [[Middle Ages]] titled ''The City''.{{sfnm|1a1=Zubaida|1y=2005–2006|1p=112|2a1=Kaesler|2y=1988|2pp=42–43|3a1=Bendix|3a2=Roth|3y=1977|3pp=70–73}} According to him, Christianity served to break the traditional bonds of [[kinship]] by causing its believers to participate in the religion as individuals. However, the institutions that formed as a result of this process were secular in nature.{{sfnm|1a1=Bendix|1a2=Roth|1y=1977|1pp=72–79|2a1=Zubaida|2y=2005–2006|2pp=112–113}} He also saw the rise of a unique form of non-legitimate domination in medieval European cities that successfully challenged the existing forms of legitimate domination{{snd}}traditional, charismatic, and rational-legal{{snd}}that had prevailed until then in the medieval world.{{sfnm|1a1=Swedberg|1a2=Agevall|1y=2016|1pp=88–89|2a1=Kaesler|2y=1988|2pp=44–46}} These cities were previously under the jurisdiction of several different entities that were removed as they became autonomous. That process was caused by the granting of privileges to newer cities and the usurpation of authority in older ones.{{sfn|Bendix|Roth|1977|pp=75–76}}

===Economics===
Weber primarily regarded himself as an economist, and all of his professorial appointments were in economics, but his contributions to that field were largely overshadowed by his role as a founder of modern sociology.{{sfnm|1a1=Petersen|1y=2017|1p=29|2a1=Baehr|2y=2002|2pp=22–23|3a1=Turner|3y=2001b|3p=16406}} As a [[Political economy|political economist]] and [[Economic history|economic historian]], Weber belonged to the German [[historical school of economics]], represented by academics such as [[Gustav von Schmoller]] and his student [[Werner Sombart]].{{sfnm|1a1=Swedberg|1y=1999|1pp=561–582|3a1=Heath|3y=2024}} While Weber's research interests were largely in line with this school, his views on methodology and [[marginal utility]] significantly diverged from those of the other German [[Historicism|historicists]]. Instead, they were closer to those of [[Carl Menger]] and the [[Austrian school of economics]], the traditional rivals of the historical school.{{sfnm|1a1=Beiser|1y=2011|1pp=525–527|2a1=Maclachlan|2y=2017|2pp=1161–1163|3a1=Radkau|3y=2009|3p=138}} The division caused by the {{Lang|de|[[Methodenstreit]]}} caused Weber to support a broad interpretation of economics that combined economic theory, economic history, and economic sociology in the form of ''{{Interlanguage link|Sozialökonomik|de}}'' ("social economics").{{sfn|Swedberg|Agevall|2016|p=103}}

====''Economy and Society''====
{{Main|Economy and Society}}

[[File:Manuskript max weber rechtssoziologie.jpg|thumb|A page from the manuscript of the sociology of law within ''[[Economy and Society]]''|alt=A page from the ''Economy and Society'' manuscript]]

Weber's {{Lang|la|magnum opus}} ''Economy and Society'' is an essay collection that he was working on at the time of his death in 1920.{{sfnm|1a1=Whimster|1y=2023|1p=82|2a1=Roth|2y=2016|2pp=250–253|3a1=Hanke|3y=2009|3pp=349–350}} Its text was largely unfinished, outside of the first three chapters. The first four chapters were written between 1919 and 1920, but the other chapters were generally written between 1909 and 1914.{{sfn|Swedberg|Agevall|2016|pp=105–106}} After his death, the final organisation and editing of the book fell to his widow [[Marianne Weber|Marianne]]. She was assisted by the economist [[Melchior Palyi]]. The resulting volume was published in 1922 and was titled {{lang|de|Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft}}.{{sfnm|1a1=Swedberg|1a2=Agevall|1y=2016|1p=105|2a1=Whimster|2y=2023|2p=82|3a1=Hanke|3y=2009|3pp=349–350}} The resulting volume included a wide range of essays dealing with Weber's views regarding sociology, [[social philosophy]], politics, [[social stratification]], [[World religions|world religion]], diplomacy, and other subjects.{{sfnm|1a1=Roth|1y=2016|1pp=250–253|2a1=Whimster|2y=2023|2p=82}} In 1956, the German jurist {{Interlanguage link|Johannes Winckelmann|de|Johannes Winckelmann (Jurist)}} edited and organised a revised fourth edition of ''Economy and Society'', later editing a fifth edition of it in 1976.{{sfnm|1a1=Swedberg|1a2=Agevall|1y=2016|1pp=109, 393|2a1=Roth|2y=2016|2pp=250–253}} [[Guenther Roth]] and Claus Wittich edited an English translation of the work in 1968. It was based on Winckelmann's 1956 edition of the text that he had revised in 1964.{{sfnm|1a1=Roth|1y=2016|1pp=250–253|2a1=Swedberg|2a2=Agevall|2y=2016|2p=109}}

====Marginal utility====
Unlike other historicists, Weber accepted [[marginal utility]] and taught it to his students.{{sfnm|1a1=Radkau|1y=2009|1p=138|2a1=Schweitzer|2y=1975|2pp=279–292|3a1=Swedberg|3y=1999|3pp=564–568}} His overall economic sociology was based on it.{{sfnm|1a1=Parsons|1y=2007|1pp=236–237|2a1=Honigsheim|2y=2017|2pp=187–188}} In 1908, Weber published an article, "Marginal Utility Theory and 'The Fundamental Law of Psychophysics'", in which he argued that marginal utility and economics were not based on psychology.{{sfnm|1a1=Mass|1y=2009|1pp=507–511|2a1=Swedberg|2y=1999|2p=564}} As part of that, he disputed Lujo Brentano's claim that marginal utility reflected the form of the psychological response to stimuli as described by the [[Weber–Fechner law]].{{sfnm|1a1=Mass|1y=2009|1pp=509–511|2a1=Swedberg|2a2=Agevall|2y=2016|2p=227}} He rejected the idea that marginal utility and economics were dependent on [[psychophysics]].{{sfnm|1a1=Mass|1y=2009|1pp=509–511|2a1=Swedberg|2a2=Agevall|2y=2016|2p=227}} In general, Weber disagreed with the idea that economics relied on another field.{{sfn|Swedberg|Agevall|2016|p=227}} He also included a similar discussion of marginal utility in the second chapter of ''Economy and Society''. Both marginal utility and declining utility's roles in his writings were implied through his usage of [[Instrumental and value-rational action|instrumentally rational action]] in that chapter.{{sfn|Parsons|2007|pp=235–238}}

====Economic calculation====
Like his colleague [[Werner Sombart]], Weber regarded [[Cost–benefit analysis|economic calculation]], particularly [[double-entry bookkeeping]], as having played a significant role in [[Rationalization (sociology)|rationalisation]] and the development of capitalism.{{sfnm|1a1=Carruthers|1a2=Espeland|1y=1991|1pp=31–34|2a1=Swedberg|2a2=Agevall|2y=2016|2pp=24–25}} Weber's preoccupation with the importance of economic calculation led him to critique socialism as lacking a mechanism to efficiently allocate resources to satisfy human needs.{{sfnm|1a1=Tribe|1y=2009|1pp=157–158|2a1=Swedberg|2a2=Agevall|2y=2016|2p=199}} [[Otto Neurath]], a socialist thinker, thought that [[price]]s would not exist and central planners would use in-kind, rather than monetary, [[economic calculation problem|economic calculation]] in a completely socialised economy.{{sfnm|1a1=Tribe|1y=2009|1pp=143–147|2a1=Cat|2y=2023}} According to Weber, this type of coordination was inefficient because it was incapable of solving the problem of [[Theory of imputation|imputation]], which related to the difficulties in accurately determining the relative values of [[capital good]]s.{{sfnm|1a1=Tribe|1y=2009|1pp=158–159|2a1=Cat|2y=2023}} Weber wrote that the value of goods had to be determined in a socialist economy. However, there was no clear method for doing so in that economic system. Planned economies were, therefore, irrational.{{sfnm|1a1=Callison|1y=2022|1pp=281–282|2a1=Tribe|2y=2009|2pp=157–159|3a1=Swedberg|3a2=Agevall|3y=2016|3p=199}} At approximately the same time, [[Ludwig von Mises]] independently made the same argument against socialism.{{sfnm|1a1=Tribe|1y=2009|1p=142|2a1=Swedberg|2a2=Agevall|2y=2016|2p=199}} Weber himself had a significant influence on Mises, whom he had befriended when they were both at the University of Vienna in the spring of 1918. However, Mises ultimately regarded him as having been a historian, rather than an economist.{{sfnm|1a1=Maclachlan|1y=2017|1p=1166|2a1=Kolev|2y=2020|2p=44|3a1=Callison|3y=2022|3pp=275–276}}