Interpretations of Weber's liberalism

There are varying interpretations of Max Weber's liberalism due to his well known sociological achievements. Max Weber is considered an eminent founder of modern social sciences, rivaled by the figures of Emile Durkheim and Karl Marx. Some students of Weberian are thought to have paid less attention to Weber's extensive and often passionate engagement with the politics of his day, particularly in the United States. However, European intellectuals have given more attention to his political thought. Most of Weber's political writings have not been published in translation, or have been translated only recently in a piecemeal form.

Overview

Weber's political ideas have inspired controversy in Germany for decades and his conception of democracy has been the subject of debate. His rejection of the Wilhelmine regime's authoritarian political structure and his advocacy of parliamentary and democratic reform has led many scholars to consider him as a liberal. Compared to most of his contemporaries in the late-Wilhelmine era, he was. He was not a liberal in the American sense and not a democrat in the sense that the French, the English, or the Americans gave the term. He looked to place the nation and the power of the state above all other things.Cite book |last=Aron |first=Raymond |authorlink=Raymond Aron |title=Main Currents in Sociological Thought |volume=2 |coauthors=Richard Howard and Helen Weaver |publisher=Basic Books Inc. |location=New York |date=1967 |pages=242, 248]

Weber wished to preserve many freedoms in the "age of the Rights of Man"Cite book |last=Weber |first=Max |title=Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology |coauthors=Guenther Roth, Claus Wittich |publisher=University of California Press |location=Berkeley |date=1978 |pages=6 |isbn=0520035003] and rejected the philosophical basis for most Western formulations of Enlightenment liberalism.Cite book |last=Turner |first=Stephen P. |coauthors=Regis A. Factor |title=Max Weber and the Dispute over Reason and Value |publisher=Routledge and Kegan Paul |location=Boston |date=1984 |pages=18, 66, 73 |isbn=0710098898] Cite book |last=Mommsen |first=Wolfgang J. |title=Max Weber and German Politics: 1890-1920 |publisher=University of Chicago Press |location=Chicago |date=1984 |pages=392 |isbn=0226533999] Weber conceived "parliamentarization" primarily for selecting leadersCite book |last=Weber |first=Marianne |title=Max Weber: A Biography |coauthors=Harry Zorn |publisher=John Wiley & Sons |location=New York |date=1975 |pages=586] who could increase the power of the German nation.

Interpretations

Political views

Wolfgang J. Mommsen initiated an intense debate by arguing this in the 1959 German publication of "Max Weber and German Politics 1890-1920".Cite book |last=Mommsen |first=Wolfgang J |authorlink=Wolfgang J. Mommsen |title=Max Weber und die Deutsche Politik 1890- 1920 |publisher=J.C.B. Mohr |location=Tübingen |date=1959] Mommsen exposed themes in Weber's thought that marred the sociologist's liberal reputation. Weber had been an extreme nationalist. His sociological idea of charismatic authority was evident in his political views, and was close to fascist notions of plebiscitary leadership."Cite book |last=Mommsen |first=Wolfgang J. |title=The Political and Social Theory of Max Weber |publisher=University of Chicago Press |location=Chicago |date=1989 |pages=191 |isbn=0226534006] His theory of "leader-democracy" seemed flawed and was exposed to authoritarian reinterpretation"Cite journal |last=Roth |first=Guenther |title=Political Critiques of Max Weber: Some Implications for Political |journal=Sociology American Sociological Review|daet=April 1965 |volume=30 |issue=2 |pages=214, 220n] Weber's teachings concerning charismatic leadership coupled with the radical formulation of the meaning of democratic institutions, contributed to making the German people inwardly ready to acclaim the leadership position of Adolf Hitler.

Max Weber's call for the democratic reform of the Wilhelmine state, and his involvement in the drafting of the Weimar constitution, had led German intellectuals in the 1950s to consider him as an authority who could justify the democratic character of the new Federal Republic. Mommsen's thesis, that Max Weber supported parliamentary democracy as a means to serve the power interests of the German nation-state, met a sharp response. In Raymond Aron's words, this removed "the new German democracy of a 'founding father, a glorious ancestor, and a spokesman of genius."

The German post-war context explains the relative lack of attention received by Jacob Peter Mayer's 1944 critique of Max Weber, "Max Weber and German Politics: a study in political sociology". Published in England, this work never appeared in German translation.Cite book |last=Mayer |first=Jacob Peter |title=Max Weber and German Politics: A study in political sociology |publisher=Faber and Faber Limited |location=London |date=1944 |pages=30, 83, 89-91] Mayer had been an archivist for the Social Democratic Party and the primary book reviewer for the Vorworts, the SPD party paper. Such activities made him a target of Nazi persecution, from which he escaped to England. There he became involved with the Labour Party and was a member of the faculty at the London School of Economics during the last part of the war.

Mayer labelled Weber's philosophy the "new Machiavellianism of the steel age." The conception of the state that Weber supported was identified as a middle phase in the destructive tradition of German realpolitik - a tradition that extended from Bismarck to Hitler. Mayer drew attention to the "tragic" satisfaction with which Weber embraced "the empty character" of Heinrich Rickert's neo-Kantian philosophy of value. Weber's value theory was indicted as a nihilistic contribution to the rise of National Socialism. Britain's experience with the Second World War may partly explain why Mayer's study failed to raise as much controversy there as did Mommsen's work in post-war Germany.

Politics and sociology

Weber's political views have been considered to threaten the reputation of his sociology. Guenther Roth, Reinhard Bendix, and Karl Loewenstein have defended Weberian sociology by arguing that it stands separate from his political convictions.Cite book |last=Mommsen |first=wolfgang J. |title=The Political and Social Thought of Max Weber |publisher=University of Chicago Press |location=Chicago |date=1989 |pages=3] Cite book |last=Beetham |first=David |title=Max Weber and the Theory of Modern Politics |publisher=Polity Press |location=Cambridge |date=1985 |pages=30 |isbn=0745601189] They consider Weber's famous distinction between scientific value-neutrality and evaluative politics to support this claim. In their view, Weber's politics are insignificant to the interpretation of his sociology. This position was rejected by Mommsen.

Mommsen established continuities between Weber's "value-neutral" sociology and his "evaluative" politics. The second edition of "Max Weber and German Politics 1890-1920" argued that "values and science, in Weber's thought, were interdependent." Critics were dismissed as attempting "to shield Max Weber's sociological works against any possible criticism based on political aspects." Guenther Roth responded in a 1965 American sociological journal stating that Weber was a major target for a series of critiques aimed at political sociology in general, if not at most of social science. Roth also stated that Mommsen was far removed from the interest of American sociologists in Weber, and his treatment becomes questionable when he interprets Weber's sociological analysis as political ideology. Roth claimed that his "major intent" was "not to provide an historical defense of Weber but a review of critiques as they seem to bear on the raison d'etre of political sociology."Cite journal |last=Roth |first=Guenther |title=Political Critiques of Max Weber: Some Implications for Political |journal=Sociology American Sociological Review|daet=April 1965 |volume=30 |issue=2 |pages=214, 220n] He claimed that Weber must appear relativist and Machiavellian to all those who, for ideological reasons, cannot recognize any dividing line between political sociology and political ideology. Weber insisted on such a distinction, while his critics refused to distinguish between his scholarship and his politics."

Weber's sociological writings are, in Roth's view, divorced from his political ones. Raymond Aron has argued the opposite position. Aron does not consider Weber's sociology to stand above politics. Weber was both politician and sociologist, a typical 'power-politician.' Aron believed he belongs to the posterity of Machiavelli as much as to the contemporaries of Nietzsche and that the struggle for power between classes and individuals seemed to him the essence of politics. A people or a person without the will to power was, according to Aron, outside the sphere of politics.

ee also

*Classical liberalism
*List of Max Weber works
*Social liberalism

References