Max Weber (1864-1920), a German sociologist and political economist, remains one of the best-known and most read social scientists of the 20th century. In his seminal work The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (1904/1905), he proposed that Protestant ethic was a determining factor in the development of early European capitalism – this famous essay has spurred many different interpretations, one of which EuroStorie’s Dr. Pedro Magalhães calls “the narrative of European singularity”.
To Magalhães, Weber’s narrative of European singularity denotes the (false) belief that certain events or phenomena occur exclusively in Europe, even if Weber referred to the “West” or the “Occident” when referring to the birth of capitalism. Even though Magalhães does not completely agree with his thoughts on the birth of industrial capitalism, Weber has still greatly influenced his work and he finds the idea fascinating.
Magalhães highlights the interesting contradiction in Weber’s interpretation: Capitalism was born in a specific cultural milieu from Protestant ethics, yet at the same time it had a universal significance as it spread all over the world.
According to Weber, it was possible to study capitalist developments in the West only in comparison with other parts of the world. By researching China and India and why they had not produced capitalist systems, he tried to find out why this major transformation had occurred particularly in Europe – and especially in certain parts of Europe rather than in others – and why it was so significant. For Weber, modernity was singular, yet current scholarship agrees on that there are several modernities: the structures of capitalism and developments that accompany it are transformed in various ways as they enter different cultures.
The many states of capitalism
Going back from Weber’s time to our current time: What does the narrative of European singularity tell us about Europe? Is Europe or the West as special as Weber proposed? As obvious as the answer seems, it still sometimes gets forgotten in Eurocentric discussions: The history of Europe (just like the history of any other place) is full of singularities and peculiarities, and the meanings of these can only be understood with reasoned comparisons with the rest of the world.
Magalhães finds it difficult to guess what Weber would have thought of the world today, but he believes that Weber would have been greatly surprised by the different paths capitalism and democracy have taken, from China’s authoritarian capitalism to Europe’s strong integration efforts.
But would Weber be happy about the current state of global capitalism? “Probably not”, Magalhães says.
“The ambiguity of Weber’s works is likely why he remains one of the most influential social theorists of the 20th century."
The flip side of that ambiguity is the fact that Weber has also been greatly misunderstood: Unlike sometimes believed, he did not celebrate capitalism. In fact, Weber spoke about an iron cage, referring to new forms of enslavement created by industrial capitalism in tandem with other modern developments.
Probably one of the biggest reasons for misinterpretations of Weber was the English version of his essay, translated in the 1930s by sociologist Talcott Parsons. Magalhães explains that many meanings got lost in translation and the innate ambiguity of the text was largely erased. Because of this, especially in the American academia after the Second World War, Weber was “rehabilitated” as the intellectual nemesis of Karl Marx, as a pro-capitalist German philosopher. This interpretation was used during the Cold War for politically motivated purposes in the clash between capitalist and communist systems.
Unintended consequences then and now
If this was a children’s book, now would be the time for the moral of the story. But is there any? According to Magalhães, the narrative and its different interpretations can serve as a pedagogical, even moral example of teaching us to be more aware of the unintended consequences of our actions.
According to Weber, protestant preachers encouraged people to behave in a certain, frugal way – work hard, save money, don’t indulge in luxury – which, according to Weber, generated the spirit of capitalism, Magalhães explains. “However, even if that was the case, that was not necessarily the original intention of the preachers, as they were not interested in economics, but in the ethical conduct of human beings.”
Current historical scholarship also agrees that the connection between the birth of capitalism and Protestantism is partly an anachronism: some aspects of financial capitalism predate Protestantism itself. However, since ethics and economics are often interconnected, the preachers’ influence might have helped to bring about the modern industrial capitalist system, without necessarily intending to do so. In the same way, Talcott Parsons and other academics who “rehabilitated” Weber, might not have meant to misinterpret him, but ended up creating a lasting image of Weber as a pro-capitalist thinker. Magalhães himself is one of the researchers who is trying to set the record straight on Weber and bring back the ambiguity that was lost in the 1930s.
“For anyone trying to understand what is going on in our society, this is a valuable lesson: Intentions do not necessarily lead to their desired outcomes”, Magalhães explains.
It is a lesson of humility, of being mindful, as sometimes the consequences can even be the complete opposites of intentions. Magalhães still thinks that this is no reason for us to be passive or pessimistic, but rather, as Weber also taught, to take responsibility for our actions.
Dr. Pedro Magalhães is a post-doctoral researcher in subproject 2, Discovering the Limits of Reason - Europe and the Crisis of Universalism. He has a background in political science and political theory. His research focuses on early twentieth-century political thought, with a special emphasis on the crises of the interwar period. Find Pedro Magalhães on The University of Helsinki Research Portal.