The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, and: The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism

and Other Writings (review)

Philip S. Gorski

Social Forces, Volume 82, Number 2, December 2003, pp. 833-839 (Article)

Published by Oxford University Press DOI: 10.1353/sof.2004.0008

For additional information about this article

http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/sof/summary/v082/82.2gorski.html

Access provided by University of California @ Irvine (21 Aug 2013 15:27 GMT)

Book Reviews / 833

Book Reviews

The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. By Max Weber, 3d ed., translated and edited by Stephen Kalberg. Roxbury, 2002. 266 pp. The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism and Other Writings. By Max Weber, translated and edited by Peter Baehr and Gordon C. Wells. Penguin, 2002. 392 pp. Paper, $16.00 Reviewer: PHILIP S. GORSKI, Yale University Nearly a century after its initial publication as a series of journal articles in the years 1904 and 1905, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism still remains one of the most influential and widely read works in social science. First translated into English by Talcott Parsons in 1930, Webers book has been reissued by no fewer than nine publishers in at least sixteen separate editions, not including the two new editions under consideration in this review.1 Even today, it is one of the biggest-selling books in the field. As of this writing, the Parsons translation has an Amazon.com ranking that is well ahead of those for The Marx-Engels Reader and The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life, the highest-ranking books by Karl Marx and mile Durkheim. Indeed, among the sociological classics, only Democracy in America ranks higher (1,573) than The Protestant Ethic.2 Of course, The Protestant Ethic has been intellectually influential as well as commercially successful. Phrases like iron cage and elective affinity are a part of every sociologists working vocabulary, and the term Protestant work ethic is often invoked by people who have never even heard of Weber. In these senses, the Parsons translation has been a remarkable success. Qua translation, however, it leaves a great deal to be desired. The defects of the translation are not stylistic in nature. Most readers would probably agree that Parsons prose is actually quite elegant a good deal more elegant than the original, in fact. And therein lies the problem. For as anyone who has read the Protestant Ethic in the original can attest, Parsons took considerable liberties with Webers language. These liberties have been ably catalogued and analyzed
The University of North Carolina Press Social Forces, December 2003, 82(2):833

834 / Social Forces 82:2, December 2003

by Peter Ghosh.3 Some were relatively harmless, as when Parsons rendered stahlhartes Gehuse as iron cage rather than the more literal and even more terrifying steel-hard shell. It is entertaining to think about the numerous chapter headings and book titles that have been affected by this rather arbitrary choice of words and the reasons Parsons might have had for choosing this translation (if, indeed, it really was a conscious choice rather than a momentary whim or a failure of vocabulary).4 But it would be hard to argue that much was really lost, except perhaps for a few additional shudders on the part of Webers first-time readers. In other cases, though, something really was lost in translation, as on those occasions when Parsons rendered the term Wahlverwandschaft not as elective affinity, but as correlation or relationship.5 Weber clearly chose this unusual term to denote a very specific type of causal relationship, one involving an unforeseeable but consequential crossing of two chains of causation that resulted in a strengthening of certain historical individuals and the weakening of others, in this instance the conjunction of Renaissance capitalism with Protestant asceticism, which gave an ethical foundation to capitalism and opened a new field of activity to the Christian ascetic, while weakening the power of economic traditionalism and the Christian devaluation of worldly gain or so Weber wished to argue.6 An elective affinity is something much more specific than a causal relationship, and something rather different from a correlation, especially in the sense that term has now come to be understood (i.e., as a statistical correlation). In still other instances, Webers words are not simply watered down with vague terminology, but twisted around to fit Parsonss own views, as when he translates the word Antriebe as sanctions rather than drives. This translation leads the reader to understand Calvinism as a repressive force that limits action (which may be how Parsons himself experienced it during his upbringing) rather than as a dynamic force that impelled action (which is clearly how Weber understood it.)7 Nor are questionable translations of key terms the only problem with the Parsons version of the Protestant Ethic. Phrases are reduced and words dropped, sometimes with a considerable loss of meaning. For example, when Weber refers to the Quakers as the most consistent representatives of the new ethos, Parsons omits this reference.8 If the Parsons translation of the Protestant Ethic often seems easier to read than, say, the Roth and Wittich translation of Economy and Society, this is not always due to differences in the original texts, but sometimes also to Parsonss overzealous pruning of Webers language. For all these reasons, the two retranslations under consideration here one by Stephen Kalberg (Roxbury), the other by Gordon C. Wells and Peter Baehr (Penguin) are very welcome indeed. There are a number of thorny issues that confront any would-be translator, and the two sets of translators have navigated them rather differently. One is which edition to translate the first

Book Reviews / 835

edition of 19045 or the revised edition of 1920. At first glance, the choice might appear easy, since the 1920 edition includes additional text and footnotes containing Webers responses to the various points raised by his critics during the previous fifteen years. For these reasons, it could be regarded as the authoritative version of the book. No doubt, this is why Kalberg and Parsons preferred it. On further reflection, however, there are also some arguments to be made for the 19045 version. It is less cluttered with allusions and references that will be obscure to the nonspecialist. And as Wells and Baehr rightly point out, it is also more tentative and less polemical in tone. Webers responses to his critics were often intemperate, and some of this vitriol seeped into the 1920 version of the Protestant Ethic. Indeed, there is an unmistakable tension between the bold and confident defense of the Protestant Ethic argument in the 1920 version and the far more measured and qualified presentation of it in Webers contemporaneous lectures on economic history, known today as General Economic History. Weber has been called an intellectual street-fighter who took a no-holds-barred approach to his critics, and he throws plenty of kidney punches in the revised version of the Protestant Ethic. So there are good reasons to prefer the 19045 version as well, and Wells and Baehr have done a great service to the discipline in making it available to English-language readers. A second issue to consider is which supplementary materials to include, and in what order. In the Routledge edition of the Parsons translation the most popular version of Protestant Ethic in recent years the main text is preceded by a brief introduction written by Anthony Giddens, an even briefer translators preface written by Talcott Parsons, and an authors preface written by Weber in 1920, not as a preface to Protestant Ethic, but as a preface to the Collected Essays on the Sociology of Religion, of which the Protestant Ethic was only the first volume. Both of the new translations include a great deal of additional material arranged in a rather different order (see Appendix). The Roxbury edition differs only slightly from the Routledge edition. It includes the Protestant Sects essay as well as the 1920 Preface and places both immediately after the main text. Wells and Baehr take a more radical approach. In their volume, the Protestant Ethic proper is followed by Webers Protestant Sects essay, his replies to his critics, and the 1920 Preface in that order. Organizing the materials in this way allows the reader to follow the development of Webers thought and the broadening of his project from the initial publication of the Protestant Ethic in 19045 to the 1920 reframing of the Collected Essays around the concept of rationalization. Wells and Baehr do depart from this chronological schema in one regard, by appending the voluminous notes to the 1920 edition to the corresponding parts of the 1904 5 text rather than placing them at the end of the text, a somewhat puzzling decision that is a bit at odds with an otherwise judicious framework. As is their right and their duty, both editorial teams have also written introductions to the text and to the translations. (Baehr and Wells also include

836 / Social Forces 82:2, December 2003

suggestions for further reading, and Kalberg a glossary of key terms.) Their introductions to the text are quite different in length and substance and bear some comment. The Baehr-Wells introduction is relatively compact and focuses less on the Webers argument per se than on the context in which it was written and received and, more specifically, on the cultural and political situation of the old Kaisserreich, the biographical background for Webers intellectual views, and the different receptions of the Protestant Ethic among German and AngloAmerican scholars. This introduction draws on the latest scholarship and goes well beyond the now-tired comparisons between Marx and Weber. It will be especially interesting to readers who are already familiar with Webers arguments and the controversies it unleashed. Kalbergs introduction, by contrast, is quite lengthy and focuses much more on Webers argument. It also includes discussions of the Collected Essays and of Webers methodology. It provides a mini introduction, not just to the Protestant Ethic but to Webers entire sociology of religion and analysis of rationalization. The one major flaw in Kalbergs introduction, if it is one, is that it is not just a neutral interpretation of the Protestant Ethic that seeks to put the key issues on the table, but a spirited defense of it that implicitly responds to recurrent criticisms of the Weber thesis. The problem is Kalberg sometimes presents his own elaborations and reconstructions of Webers arguments as if they were mere summaries. One example: many readers have criticized Webers use of Benjamin Franklin as an exemplar of the capitalist spirit and its links to the Protestant ethic. They point out, quite rightly, that Puritanism was well past its apogee by Franklins time, and that Franklin himself was religiously indifferent at best. If this is so, they ask, then how can Weber plausibly argue that Franklins economic ethic or the economic ethics of other AngloAmerican entrepreneurs was shaped by ascetic Protestantism? The answer, Kalberg suggests, is to be found in family socialization, in the persistence of Puritan child-rearing practices into the Enlightenment era. This is an interesting argument, and it may even be correct. But Weber himself did not make it. Thus, while Kalbergs introduction provides a long and engaging interpretation of Webers central arguments that students will find quite readable, instructors should be aware of its somewhat partisan character. The third and perhaps most important issue the translator faces is how to approach Webers dense and muscular prose. Should one seek to preserve the stylistic tone and syntactical structure of the original? Or should one simply aim for maximum clarity and readability? To do both is impossible. Generally speaking, Wells and Baehr have opted for the former (see Figure). In their translation, Webers style is dense and energetic, bristling with encyclopedic knowledge and intellectual impatience; his sentences are long and convoluted, full of the qualifying clauses and brisk asides familiar to readers of Economy and Society. Reading their translation, one feels as if one is listening to Weber speaking in English. Kalberg, by contrast, has striven mainly for clarity and

Book Reviews / 837

readability. In his translation, Webers style is lighter and calmer, his long sentences broken apart into bite-size pieces. There is also the question of how to translate certain key terms that have no obvious English equivalent. Wells and Baehr are generally conservative. For the most part, they stick to the established translations. (Though there are inevitably a few small misfires, as when they translate Bubkampf as repentance experience rather than conversion struggle.) Kalberg is a good deal bolder. His translations often differ substantially from the established ones. In some cases, these new translations are quite successful, as when he renders psychologische Prmien as psychological rewards. In others, however, the new translation does not represent a major improvement, as when he renders Lebensfhrung as organization of life rather than (the more literal) lifeconduct, and in a few others, Kalberg misfires altogether, as when he translates Gesinnung as frame. But all translations are imperfect by nature, and both of these new translations are a considerable improvement over Parsonss. Having waded through this review, the reader will no doubt want a recommendation about which volume to choose. Each volume has its virtues and the choice will depend a great deal on the audience. For a graduate seminar or an advanced undergraduate class, composed of students who already have some prior knowledge of Weber, I would recommend the Wells-Baehr version, since it allows one to follow the first round of the Protestant Ethic controversy and the development of Webers thinking and thereby deepen ones understanding of the argument and the issues surrounding it. On the other hand, someone teaching an undergraduate lecture class, composed of students encountering Weber for the first time, might want to use the Kalberg version because of the more extensive treatment of the the Protestant Ethic argument in the introduction and because the text is much more heavily processed and will be a good deal easier for novice undergraduates to digest. For ones personal library, though, I would urge readers to buy both translations and to dispatch their copies of the Parsons translation to the dustbin of history, where it now belongs.
Notes 1. Based on a search of WorldCat, which turned up the following publishers and editions, listed by date of first edition: Unwin (1930, 1976, 1985), University of Chicago Bookstore (1930, 1946), Scribners (1948, 1958, 1960), Routledge (1976, 1992), Prentice-Hall (1976), P. Smith (1988), HarperCollins (1991), Roxbury (1996, 1998). 2. As of September 8, 2003 the rankings for Weber, Marx, and Durkheim are 2,907, 6,000, and 47,847, respectively. The ranking for Tocqueville is 1,573. These rankings refer to: Max Weber, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, translated by Talcott Parsons (Routledge 1992); Richard C. Tuck, editor and translator, The Marx-Engels Reader (Norton 1978); Emile Durkheim, The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life, translated

838 / Social Forces 82:2, December 2003

by Karen Fields (Free Press 1995), and Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, edited by Richard D. Heffner (Signet). 3. Peter Ghosh, Some Problems with Talcott Parsons Version of The Protestant Ethic, Archives europennes de sociologie 35 (1994):104-23. 4. For further details and a somewhat different opinion, see Peter Baehr, The Iron Cage and the Shell As Hard As Steel: Parsons, Weber, and the stahlhartes Gehuse Metaphor in The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, History and Theory 40 (May 2001): 153-69. 5. As on Weber, Protestant Ethic, 1992 pp. 91-2. For further discussion and additional examples see Ghosh, Parsons and Weber, pp. 105-6 and n. 7. 6. Or such at least is the interpretation suggested to me both by the use of this term in chemistry and by the plot-line of Goethes novel of the same name. 7. Ghosh, Parsons and Weber, p. 107. 8. Ghosh, Parsons and Weber, n. 3.

APPENDIX: Sample Translations

1. Opening Paragraph a. German original (GARS vol. 1, p. 1): Ein Blick in die Berufsstatistik eines konfessionell gemischten Landes pflegt mit auffallender Hufigkeit eine Erscheinung zu zeigen, welche mehrfach in der katholischen Presse und Literatur und auf den Katholikentagen Deutschlands lebhaft errtert worden ist: den ganz vorwiegend protestantischen Charakter des Kapitalbesitzes und Unternehmertums sowohl, wie der oberen gelernten Schichten der Arbeiterschaft, namentlich aber des hheren technisch oder kaufmnnisch vorgebildeten Personals der modernen Unternehmungen. b. Parsons translation (p. 3) A glance at the occupational statistics of any country of mixed religious composition brings to light with remarkable frequency a situation which has several times provoked discussion in the Catholic press and literature, and in Catholic congresses in Germany, namely, the fact that business leaders and owners of capital, as well as the higher grades of skilled labour, and even more the higher technically and commercially trained personnel of modern enterprises, are overwhelmingly Protestant. c. Baehr and Wells translation (p. 1) With relatively few variations and exceptions, the occupational statistics of a denominationally mixed region reveals a phenomenon which in recent years has frequently been the subject of lively debate in the Catholic Press, in Catholic literature, and at Catholic conventions: business leaders and owners of capital, as well as the skilled higher strata of the labor force, and especially the higher technical or commercially trained staff of modern enterprises tend to be predominantly Protestant.

APPENDIX: Sample Translations (Continued)

d. Kalberg translation (p. 3)

Book Reviews / 839

A glance at the occupational statistics for any country in which several religions coexist is revealing. They indicate that people who own capital, employers, more highly educated skilled workers, and more highly trained technical or business personnel in modern companies tend to be, with striking frequency, overwhelmingly Protestant. 2. Iron Cage a. German original (GARS vol. 1, p. 203) Nur wie ein dnner Mantel, den man jederzeit abwerfen knnte, sollte nach Baxters Ansicht die Sorge um die ueren Gter um die Schulter seiner Heiligen liegen. Aber aus dem Mantel lie das Verhngnis ein stahlhartes Gehuse werden. Indem die Askese die Welt umzubauen und in der Welt sich auszuwirken unternahm, gewannen die ueren Gter dieser Welt zunehmende und schlielich unentrinnbare Macht ber den Menschen, wie niemals zuvor in der Geschichte. Heute ist ihr Geist ob endgltig, wer wei es? aus diesem Gehuse entwichen. b. Parsons translation (p. 123) In Baxters view the care for external goods should only lie on the shoulders of the saint like a light cloak, which can be thrown aside at any moment. But fate decreed that the cloak should become an iron cage. Since asceticism undertook to remodel the world and to work out its ideals in the world, material goods have gained an increasing and finally inexorable power over the lives of men as at no previous period in history. To-day the spirit of religious asceticism whether finally, who knows? has escaped from the cage. c. Baehr and Wells translation (p. 121) In Baxters view, concern for outward possessions should sit lightly on the shoulders of his saints like a thin cloak which can be thrown off at any time. But fate decreed that the cloak should become a shell as hard as steel. As asceticism began to change the world and endeavored to exercise its influence over it, the outwards goods of this world gained increasing and finally inescapable power over men, as never before in history. Today its spirit has fled this from this shell whether for all time, who knows? d. Kalberg translation (p. 123) According to Baxter, the concern for material goods should lie upon the shoulders of his saints like a lightweight coat that could be thrown off at any time. Yet fate allowed a steel-hard casing to be forged from this coat. To the extent that asceticism attempted to transform and influence the world, the worlds material goods acquired an increasing and, in the end, inescapable power over people as never before in history. Today the spirit of asceticism has fled from this casing, whether with finality, who knows?