Fundamental Concepts in Max Weber’s Sociology of Religion PDF
Preview Fundamental Concepts in Max Weber’s Sociology of Religion
FUNDAMENTAL CONCEPTS IN MAX WEBER’S SOCIOLOGY OF RELIGION Christopher Adair-Toteff Fundamental Concepts in Max Weber’s Sociology of Religion This page intentionally left blank Fundamental Concepts in Max Weber’s Sociology of Religion Christopher Adair-Toteff Palgrave macmillan FUNDAMENTAL CONCEPTS IN MAX WEBER’S SOCIOLOGY OF RELIGION Copyright © Christopher Adair-Toteff 2015 Softcover reprint of the hardcover 1st edition 2015 978-1-137-47217-5 All rights reserved. No reproduction, copy or transmission of this publication may be made without written permission. No portion of this publication may be reproduced, copied or transmitted save with written permission. In accordance with the provisions of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, or under the terms of any licence permitting limited copying issued by the Copyright Licensing Agency, Saffron House, 6-10 Kirby Street, London EC1N 8TS. Any person who does any unauthorized act in relation to this publication may be liable to criminal prosecution and civil claims for damages. First published 2015 by PALGRAVE MACMILLAN The author has asserted their right to be identified as the author of this work in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. Palgrave Macmillan in the UK is an imprint of Macmillan Publishers Limited, registered in England, company number 785998, of Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire, RG21 6XS. Palgrave Macmillan in the US is a division of Nature America, Inc., One New York Plaza, Suite 4500, New York, NY 10004-1562. Palgrave Macmillan is the global academic imprint of the above companies and has companies and representatives throughout the world. ISBN 978-1-349-56140-7 E-PDF ISBN: 978–1–137–45479–9 DOI: 10.1057/9781137454799 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Adair-Toteff, Christopher. Fundamental concepts in Max Weber’s Sociology of religion / Christopher Adair-Toteff. pages cm Includes bibliographical references and index. 1. Weber, Max, 1864–1920. Religionssoziologie. 2. Religion and sociology. I. Title. BL60.W43A33 2015 306.6092—dc23 2015016505 A catalogue record of the book is available from the British Library. Contents Preface vii Part I Conceptual Contexts 1 Introduction 3 2 From Roman Agrarianism to Sociology of Religion 9 3 Conceptual Influences and Developments 33 Part II Fundamental Concepts 4 Asceticism and Mysticism 55 5 Prophets and Pariah-People 83 6 Salvation and Theodicy 105 7 Charisma 131 Notes 157 Bibliography 179 Index 199 This page intentionally left blank Preface The sociology of religion, and more specifically, Max Weber’s sociology of religion, has been the focus of much of my scholarly research for almost a decade and a half. They were not my original interests; indeed, neither was sociology in gen- eral. Instead, my interest was originally in philosophy and my university education reflected this. During the late 1960s and early 1970s, the dominant philosophy in the United States, as in Great Britain, was analytical philosophy. So, as an undergradu- ate, I was trained primarily in that type of philosophy. During this time, I learned the importance of conceptual clarity, but what I also learned was that philosophy had been reduced to being a linguistic tool. It had little use for the age-old questions about the meaning of life and how one should act; as a result, in graduate school, I turned increasingly to the study of the his- tory of philosophy. I went back to ancient philosophy and pri- marily to Plato’s philosophy. Plato’s metaphysics was intriguing and how he used it to justify his politics was impressive, but his division of the world into the ideal and its mere copy was less than compelling. I moved to study Aristotle and then I really focused on Kant. I had intended to write my PhD dissertation on the Paralogisms section of the Critique of Pure Reason and had successfully defended a dissertation proposal on this when I was strongly urged not to focus on Kantianism, but instead on Neo-Kantianism. The resulting dissertation centered on the long-term Neo-Kantian debate concerning Kant’s conception of space. This led me to appreciate how often we overlook the backgrounds of many of the classical German sociologists. For viii PREFACE one example, we think of Georg Simmel as primarily a sociolo- gist, but he was trained as a philosopher and was one who spe- cialized on Kant’s philosophy. He did not contribute directly to the Neo-Kantian discussion of space, but he did raise important points about Kant’s place in philosophy and his lack of interest in historical issues. Something similar is true about Ferdinand Tö n nies—that his interest was in political philosophy and he concentrated not just on Marx but especially on Hobbes. Unlike Simmel and Tö n nies, Ernst Troeltsch was not educated as a phi- losopher, but as a theologian; nonetheless, his writings from 1900 on show an impressive knowledge of many aspects of philosophy and a real mastery of Kantian ethics. Following my PhD I began to write on Simmel, T ö nnies, and then Troeltsch, and finally to concentrate on Max Weber. Unlike the first three, Weber never had any particular interest in any general philosophical top- ics and he was concerned primarily with logic and concepts. In W issenschaft als Beruf, he underscores the power of reason and he extols the importance of concepts. Concepts were crit- ical to Weber’s social thinking throughout most of his life and although he continually insisted on conceptual clarity, he often did not live up to his own standards. As a result, many of his fundamental concepts are not as clear as they could have been and scholars have often debated what he meant by them. This has been especially true in regard to concepts in Weber’s sociol- ogy of religion. This was certainly problematic for students, but it became increasing evident that even Weberian scholars were not always able to comprehend what Weber meant by certain concepts like “charisma,” “asceticism,” and “theodicy.” This was made apparent to me while participating in a number of confer- ences that were devoted to Weber, in lectures, and especially during discussions. This lack of understanding and even con- fusion is what helped prompt me to write this book; that and my own struggles with understanding many of the concepts in Weber’s sociology of religion. I do not claim to have the defin- itive answer to what Weber meant by these various concepts, but I do believe that I have drawn sufficient attention to various PREFACE ix aspects about them and that will prompt others to pay closer attention to how Weber uses these concepts. Weber was never a philosopher and he evidently never had the desire to become one but, like any good philosopher, he recognized the critical importance of concepts. One would never expect to see Weber’s name alongside Plato, Aristotle, or Kant, but like these great philosophers, he expected scholars to use concepts properly, that is, clearly and consistently. A number of people were especially helpful during the course of thinking about and then writing this book. These include Edith Hanke, Sam Whimster, and Richard Swedberg. As always, I owe a debt of gratitude to my wife, Stephanie, for going over successive drafts and helping to ensure that my own concepts are clear and my writing intelligible. I also owe a huge debt of gratitude to Stephen P. Turner for his encouragement and for his criticisms. For over 20 years, Stephen has been a continual source of inspiration for my research and a constant reminder of the importance of Weber. For all that he has done, and that he continues to do for scholars, I dedicate this book to Stephen Turner.
The list of books you might like
