Weber August 1 Reading

To me this reading has made me think a little bit more about religion and the way that it deals with inequality. Weber comes to the conclusion early on in the text that religions pre-decide what careers you take and what actions you make in life. To me this shows that Weber has turned the way of talking about inequality into something a little bit more than what Rousseau, Marx, Smith, and Durkheim. I interpreted this reading as Weber saying that the Protestants and Catholics seem to predestine what everyone should do, and because of this there is an inequality because they as man themselves cannot decide things for themselves.

Being raised in a religious family and very religious background this reading makes me think about some of the ways that my religion has been all "predestined" and meant to happen for a reason and I found that Weber is bringing up points that show this creates people as unequal. To me i feel like many of the points that he made are in modern society today.

Weber offers a fantastic look into an entirely new theory on inequality. While Rousseau, Smith, Marx, and even Durkheim looked at many aspects of life (i.e., religion) as a result of inequality, Weber sees the opposite.

Not knowing much about organized religion, it was interesting to see Weber's take on Protestantism and Calvinism and their ties to the present climate of inequality. Conversely, It was great to see Weber acknowledging throughout the piece that his take isn't necessarily the 'whole story' and that there are things that lack precise clarification.

Weber makes an interesting case regarding predetermined judgement regarding heaven and hell and this being looked upon in terms of financial (capitalistic) success. This is both a theory that one could argue is valid and possibly true to today.

Many people hold the belief that 'everything happens for a reason', therefore those who are financially successful might be looked upon as superior, or 'choosen' by a higher force or power, and therefore drive more people to try and succeed in gaining more capital. If one believes capital = purity, likely much of their life will revolve around a cycle of attempting to obtain capital.

The Protestant Ethic

I found Weber's reading for this weekend to be relevant to our modern society. His concept of the "spirit of capitalism" is based upon both historical and religious factors. It suggests that the entrepreneur or the capitalist pursue his "calling" and can feel a sense of moral solidarity in achieving success in the professional life. Weber both criticizes and supports different aspects of this, but what I found to be intriguing is the idea that economic pursuits can bring fulfillment to one's morality. Especially in our society today, the drive for economic success is extremely strong and at times, can result in immoral actions to achieve this.

I wonder what Weber's ideal entrepreneur would be like today and if it would even be possible to say that he was pursuing a "calling"? What is the modern day push for success if not religion? Weber writes, "Few people are sufficiently clear-sighted to be aware of the unusual strength of character that is required from this "new type" of entrepreneur if he is not to lose his sober self-control and face moral and economic shipwreck" (22). It is possible that as religious convictions begin to decrease in our modern life, our morals do as well. It may not be the direct cause, but could be part of the influence.

Comments for 7/28

Apologies for this being late, I had to stay late at work today.

Today's second reading made me reflect upon the nature of religion. We're used to associating it with elaborate godheads and intricate systems of belief with some form of ecclesiastical authority. But religion can also be a much broader topic, like Durkheim himself discussed in our earlier reading. In the past, religion was everything, and today individualism is no different. Its omnipresence in our commercial society is just as potent as the papacy in late Rome. And Durkheim goes so far as to suggest that our abhorrence when rights are disregarded is a positively modern notion, a profane offense against our new god. But this new god is not like the past gods who transcended human authority, rather it is a god composed of man, acting in accordance with Kant's Categorical Imperative. For Durkheim, the writings of Kant and Rousseau created a quasi-religious idol in the form of the idealized and individualized man, acting with respect to the collectivized interests of each self-determining fellowman in his society.
But, this god is no less artificial and necessarily evil than the past ones. Durkheim believes that the necessary inflexibility of the axioms of our individualized religion prevent us from treating our moral wounds; we cannot utilitarianly aid the whole without occasionally suspending the individual rights of the few.

What really stuck out to me while this ready was when Durkheim stated, "The trade guild is no longer a common refuge for all... a deep gulf was established between masters and journeymen" (292). This huge occurance took place and established the division in society and not just in labor. I mean, this distinguishment must have affected human daily life greatly. This development of a somewhat class system, I feel like, made each person work independently and gave them another aspect to defend. I mean, at this turnpoint one could easily be insulted if a higher class man decides to show off or brag about his success. A new group of people was formed because of this distinguishment. New relations were established which I would like to further discuss in class.

Two Evils

In discussing the pathological forms that are born out of the division of labor, one sticks out of Emile Durkheim’s concepts. This form takes hold in the concept that as people specialize in his or her specific field that he or she becomes isolated from society as a whole. Durkheim links the division of labor to disintegration and also discusses the concepts of whether or not it is best to specialize or be what we discussed in class to be a “renaissance man.”

In thinking more on this, I think Durkheim raises a very well argued point in regards to how people will become overtly obsessed with one specific thing and isolate themselves from the rest of the field, but I also believe that this concept may just be a bit too extreme for me to fully accept. I stand behind what I said in class that without specialization those certain fields, such as medicine and history, would suffer from generalization and not be in the state it is today.

Ultimately, the division of labor suffers and thrives at the same time. Although people are specializing and finding isolation, they are also paving the way for the future and advancements in every field. We find ourselves “isolated” but also far more educated in every field. What is the lesser of these two evils?

Durkheim: Anomic Division of Labor

The first pathological form that results from the division of labor, according to Durkheim, is the anomic division of labor. This fairly common, negative aspect of the division of labor occurs when the individuals become isolated by their repetitive, specialized tasks, and forget that they are parts of the whole, i.e. society. Examples of this occur in industries and factories which detach workers from their employers. In order to fix this anomic division of labor, the conditions present in a state of organic solidarity must be determined. This state of interdependency would exist once the specialized workers became directly dependent on one another. This would form a complex division of labor strongly resembling an organism. The groups of people would act as organs engaging in repetitive, definite actions which contribute essential functions to the entire organism. When this state of organic solidarity is formed, problems such as anomie are rectified.