Max Weber, revised edition

121 Pages·2002·9.468 MB·English

by  Frank Parkin

11I111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
2 2 635 9 7
FRANK
London and New York
First edition first published 1982 by ELLIS HORWOOD Ltd
and TAVISTOCK PUBLICATIONS LTD
Revised edition first published 2002
by ROUTLEDGE
11 New Fetter Lane, London EC4P 4EE
Simultaneously published in the USA and Canada
by Routledge
29 West 35th Street, New York, NY 10001
Routledge is an imprint 0/ the Taylor & Francis Group
© 1982, 2002 Frank Parkin
Printed and bound in Great Britain by
TJ International Ltd, Padstow, Cornwall
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or
reproduced or utilized in any form or by any electronic, mechanical,
or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including
photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or
retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers.
British Library Cataloguillg in Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
Library a/Congress Cataloging in Publication Data
A catalog record for this book has been requested
ISBN 0-415-28528-3 (Hbk)
ISBN 0-4l5-28529-1 (Pbk)
Editor's Foreword vii
Preface to the Revised Edition xi
Preface 11
Sketch 13
Chapter 1
Methods and Procedures 17
40
3
Domination 71
Notes 111
Index 120

Max Weber, like his close contemporary Emile Durkheim (1858-1917)
deserves a special place in any series devoted to Key Sociologists.
Indeed his name is frequently combined with those of Durkheim and
Karl Marx into a sort of secular trinity of sociologists deified wherever
sociology is taught. Yet despite the apparent companionship of the
trinity they appear on closer examination to be rather uneasy bedfellows.
Marx was not strictly a sociologist - the label existed in his lifetime but
could hardly be said to describe any recognisable discipline. This does
not stop us from describing Marx as a Key Sociologist - indeed another
book in this series is devoted to Marx and Marxism - primarily because
what he wrote is central to the modern concerns of professional socio
logists. Durkheim similarly does not share a great deal in common with
Weber. Although both were academic sociologists the characteristic
theories and methods of the two men set them at a considerable distance
from each other. Even their approach to developing the new science of
sociology differed fundamentally, Durkheim devoting his life to the
patient work of creating the teaching institutions, learned societies and
journals so essential to its institutionalization, whilst Weber was more
of the pure scholar content to grapple with fundamental problems and
from time to time come up with an inspirational idea that others
could
- as witness
as a SOC1010gJ.:st
1
to from economics.
similar situation in France like
SOC:IOI!GjW from other academic areas --in his case
answer to that
will not
remarks are however worth
UAa;n..u.iO'
and Weber was for the emergence
ideas which continue to be central to the of the subject.
that social action', , forms of
<101nll1lauon. and the stratification processes of societies, been used
and reworked to a wide range of problems.
conceived at a time the intellectual boundaries of
SOCIOI()g'y were very these ideas have shown their power
currency all the vicissitudes of the subject
on its way to an international science.
cOlnpJlerrlents to those of Marx and each
"""", .. +.".,3" .. audience and with different aims in mind.
are made to their
",tt,C><'Y1I"",t",
esstmtially cOIltnldlc:tOlY - different models for
cOlmple:x:ity of society. Weber's sociological models
fellows they stress a
op'po~)c<1 to both Marxian Durkheimian
COJleCtlVlltles. a belief the value of individual
po:ssltn.l.11ty of ever irrevocable
answers to qU!estllons.
SO(:1010~]lca1
Whilst it is incontrovertible that Weber's work has influenced much
of Western has to be out that it contains
cisions and which have led to a range of different inter-
pretations of his methods. Weber would not have been
but
to as the source of this or that
cOIlst~mtJly clllatilgifJtg character
different
Thus merit of Fnmk Parkin's is
on the four central elements of Weber's oeuvre which
discussed and utilised other sociologists. turn he eX~Ulunes
Weber forward as method or and then n"l"\.v1.r1,P.~
which illuminates both the strengths and contradictions of his soclolcJgy
And it is perhaps in his contradictions that Weber is most .......
,7V'> ••1 t'l?1t
sociology. For in looking at what he said we can move on to
develop sociological ideas which are an advance on Weber's. :SO(:tOl~D£V
has pretensions, at the very least, to a science - and no science
can afford to treat the work of its key as inviolable and safe
from criticism. It is only by exploiting the errors of its forebears that a
science can progress. Frank Parkin's book shows very clearly
Weber holds a key position in the development of sociology, but at
the same time why his ideas are stepping stones towards
about society.
Peter Hamilton
When this book was first published more than two decades ago, the
preoccupations of social theory were markedly different from those
of today. This was the time when Marxist theory in its many and
varied manifestations virtually ruled the intellectual roost, not only
by defining the terms of debate but also by turning out an endless
supply of conceptual tools with which to conduct it. Almost every
corner of the social sciences and beyond came to absorb the lan
guage of the Marxist renaissance, whether via Gramsci and the
humanist tendency, or Marcuse and Adorno and other luminaries of
the Frankfurt School, or through the teachings of Habennas and
Foucault, or by way of the baroque structuralism of Althusser and
his disciples.
Against the backdrop of this impressive array of Marxist heavy
weights, Weber's work took on a special significance. He was one
of the very few sociologists, acknowledged by admirers and detrac
tors alike, who was thought to be of sufficient stature to uphold the
claims of bourgeois social theory against its radical critics. That
Weber should have been cast in this role is not too surprising, since
almost from the outset his work was commonly seen as a riposte or
counterweight to Marx's, sometimes in ways that he himself would
surely have disavowed. Be that as it may, it is certainly true that
Edition
many of '1'-1 eber' s most illuminating studies read as if
written in the course of a silent dialogue with Marx. Most of the
themes that Marx chose to wrestle with were taken
and given his own distinctive slant. However
general line of reasoning of the two men might sometimes have
overlapped, there can be no gainsaying the fact that Marxist theory
and Weberian sociology must be regarded as distinct intellectual
species. Ultimately, they are competing ways of apprehending and
interpreting the raw material of social life.
As things have transpired, it would appear that Weber's ideas
have weathered a good deal better than those of l\Aarx and his
acolytes. The credibility of the latter was irreparably undermined by
the collapse of the socialist system in the Soviet Union and eastern
Europe. All the elborately documented 'internal contradictions' of
capitalism turned out to be more applicable to state socialism than ,
to its bourgeois alternative. Moreover, the unanticipated transition
from socialism to capitalism frequently led to outcomes which were
far more congenial to a Weberian interpretation than a Marxist one.
For example, the seizure of state assets by members of the old
nomenklatura often resulted in a form of political economy that cor
responds very closely to Weber's concept of 'booty capitalism', a
construct that has no obvious equivalent in IvIarxism. Similarly, the
demise of centralised socialist rule was quickly followed by the
resurgence of ancient ethnic hatreds, most notably in the Balkans.
The recognition of the primal force of such communal divisions has
always been one of Marxism's most serious blind spots, generally
relegated to the theoretical dustbin of 'false consciousness.' For
Weber, on the other hand, the mobilizing potential of ethnic identity
was always factored into his analyses of social stratification, not as
some archaic distortion of class imperatives but as a phenomenon to
be accorded similar explanatory weight.
It is, perhaps, in the sphere of religion, however, that Weber's
more sophisticated approach really makes itself felt. Now that the
socialist bogeyman has been put to flight, a new and no less threat-
ening spectre appears to have filled the ideological vacuum in the
shape of Islamic fundamentalism. Classical Marxist theory has little
to offer in seeking to account for such a phenomenon, given that the
mass appeal of religious faith is barely alluded to, other than in
terms of its narcotic properties. Weber, by contrast, placed great
emphasis on the revolutionary scope of sacred beliefs, especially
when interpreted through the fiery eyes of charismatic leaders.
These were the men who sprang from nowhere to defy the mightiest
Preface to the Revised Edition
of states and turn the world upside down. the light of recent polit
ical events, Weber's depiction of Islam as a 'warrior religion' has
never seemed more apt.
The enduring nature of Weber's legacy has doubtless been aided
by the fact that he always eschewed anything in the way of an a11-
encompassing general theory - the kind of artifice favoured by so
many men of ideas, before and since, and which invariably seem to
invite the wrath of the gods in their earthly guise of empirical reality.
Weber instead preferred to direct his analytical gaze at specific and
containable problems, such as bureaucracy, the Protestant ethic,
rational law, soteriology, authority, political legitimacy, and so on.
His contributions to these discrete topics did not, and were not
intended to, coalesce into a coherent system of thought. To those
who seek the solace or assurance of such a catholic system, his work
is likely to come as something of a disappointment. But for those
who feel no need for this kind of mental crutch his ideas will con
tinue to provoke admiration, wonder, excitement and exasperation in
roughly equal measure.
I have only very lightly revised this second edition, mainly to
remove anachronisms and to make some minor stylistic alterations.
I have, though, enlarged upon the suggestions for further reading to
take account of recent publications.
F.P.
March, 2002